<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 14 (filtered medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:"Courier New \;color\:\#1F497D";
panose-1:0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";
color:black;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p.MsoAcetate, li.MsoAcetate, div.MsoAcetate
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Balloon Text Char";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:8.0pt;
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";
color:black;}
p.MsoListParagraph, li.MsoListParagraph, div.MsoListParagraph
{mso-style-priority:34;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";
color:black;}
span.BalloonTextChar
{mso-style-name:"Balloon Text Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Balloon Text";
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";}
span.EmailStyle20
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
span.EmailStyle21
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Courier New";
color:#1F497D;}
span.EmailStyle22
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Courier New";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body bgcolor="white" lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier New";color:#1F497D">Kathy dearest<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier New";color:#1F497D">We are in total agreement as to the facts. Yes, ICANN contracts and policies impose all kinds of heavy and often quite arbitrary and unnecessary burdens on registries
and make it 10,000 times more difficult to get a TLD than a SLD. Yes, the AG is a conservative document that “preserves your (current) view of the world” (although it does not rule out so-called closed generics and did anticipate them).<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier New";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier New";color:#1F497D">What you don’t want to acknowledge is that those facts are products of political deals and political power. They arenot laws of nature, not required by technology. And
the political constellation that produced those facts typically do not operate in the interests of this stakeholder group or of the individual registrant.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier New";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier New";color:#1F497D">And it is what the policy _<i>should</i>_ be, how ICANN _<i>should</i>_ behave, what is in the _<i>public’s</i>_ interest, that we are supposed to be debating here,
not whether various interest groups have succeeded in hard-wiring economic and TM protectionism into ICANN’s AG.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier New";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier New";color:#1F497D">In the past, you’ve played a valuable role in challenging those arbitrary restraints but I guess you find them convenient to uphold now. I wonder why.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier New";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier New";color:#1F497D">By the way, DNSSEC has to be implemented by registrars as well as registries.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier New";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier New";color:#1F497D">--MM<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier New";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div style="border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 4.0pt">
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:windowtext">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:windowtext"> Kathy Kleiman [mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com]
<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, February 26, 2013 11:24 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> Milton L Mueller<br>
<b>Cc:</b> NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [NCSG-Discuss] Closed Generics - a letter together<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt">No, Milton, I disagree completely. Second levels, third levels and top levels are different. You can try all you want to wish it away, but you can't. Network Solutions, Inc., back when it was THE REGISTRY
AND REGISTRAR of .com, .org, .net and more operated in a way far different than you or I as registrants did.<br>
<br>
Registries, whether you like it or not, are imbued by the ICANN Community (and through contract with ICANN) with obligations to the protect the security and stability of the Internet. These are NOT magic words, they are substantive commitments that registries
work on every single day. <br>
<br>
DNSSEC, the ability to lock domains and ensure that they have not been hijacked (among other features) is a Registry-level implementation.
<br>
<br>
The Applicant Guidebook preserves my view of the world, not yours. It imbues Registries with obligations towards ICANN, the ICANN Community, and especially the Internet. These are real obligations, and ones the Registries will take very seriously -- or lose
their TLDs.<br>
<br>
Kathy<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier New ;color:#1F497D","serif""> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier New ;color:#1F497D","serif""> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<div style="border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 4.0pt">
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:5.25pt"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:windowtext">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:windowtext"> Kathy Kleiman [<a href="mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com">mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com</a>]
<br>
<br>
<br>
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Because a domain name is not a Top Level Domain.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><i><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier New ;color:#1F497D","serif"">[Milton L Mueller] Sorry, Kathy, you’re just wrong here. .FOO is a domain name. FOO.FOO is a domain name. FOO.FOO.FOO is a domain name. The DNS is recursive,
is recursive, is recursive, is recursive…(repeat 64 times)</span></i></b><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><i><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier New ;color:#1F497D","serif""> </span></i></b><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">If we follow your reasoning, there's no reason to perform extensive Technical, Operational and Financial Showings/Review of New Registries. We don't examine registrants, so why should we examine New gTLD Registries?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><i><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier New ;color:#1F497D","serif""> </span></i></b><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><i><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier New ;color:#1F497D","serif"">[Milton L Mueller] BINGO! You’ve just unmasked ICANN.
</span></i></b><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><i><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier New ;color:#1F497D","serif""> </span></i></b><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><i><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier New ;color:#1F497D","serif"">Fact is, there is _no_ reason to perform those showings other than the very fervent and politically potent desire of trademark interests, law enforcement,
incumbent operators and governments to gain regulatory leverage over the domain name users and market. And I strongly suspect that you know that as well as I - but only when you are performing in your normal role as domain name rights advocate and not as lawyer
for a client. ;-)</span></i></b><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><i><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier New ;color:#1F497D","serif""> </span></i></b><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><i><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier New ;color:#1F497D","serif"">“Extensive technical, operational and financial showings” are regulatory mechanisms that reflect layer 9 policy demands. As layer 9 phenomena, they could
be applied to SLDs as well as TLDs. Yes, the scary thing about your argument, Kathy, is that we COULD examine SLD registrants as intensively as we examine TLD registrants if the political demand exists. Indeed, some countries already do so (we will be visiting
one in April). When you think up rationalizations for those regulations at one level, you are providing fodder for their application at any level.</span></i></b><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><i><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier New ;color:#1F497D","serif""> </span></i></b><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><i><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier New ;color:#1F497D","serif"">Even in the most narrow technical sense, there is no difference. A badly operated TLD is no more or less impactful on “Internet stability” than a badly
operated SLD. You may try to reply, “but wait, if .ORG goes down then millions of people are affected” but I will quickly reply “but wait, if FACEBOOK.COM goes down….” You get the picture. What matters is how many people use it, not what level of the DNS it
is at. </span></i></b><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><i><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier New ;color:#1F497D","serif""> </span></i></b><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><i><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier New ;color:#1F497D","serif"">If you are basing your entire argument against closed generics on the “special status” of one level of the DNS, you’ve lost the argument.
</span></i></b><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><i><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier New ;color:#1F497D","serif""> </span></i></b><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><i><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier New ;color:#1F497D","serif""> </span></i></b><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>