<div dir="ltr">On 6 March 2013 01:19, Dan Krimm <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:dan@musicunbound.com" target="_blank">dan@musicunbound.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Forgive a tiny tangential nit-pick here, but it may be worth noting that<br>
"Google" originated as a misspelling of the number name "googol" and so I'm<br>
not sure that "Google" should be considered a true generic, even if it<br>
would be operated as closed.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div style>Google has submitted many applications -- including for some very genetic word strings.</div><div style><br></div><div style>Conversely, I am not aware of anyone claiming anywhere that .google is a closed generic.</div>
<div style><br></div><div style>- Evan</div><div style><br></div><div><br></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<br>
More like a brand that uses "Kleen" in its name to elicit the idea of<br>
"clean"...<br>
<br>
(Unless legitimate dictionaries might be including the misspelling as a<br>
legitimate alternate spelling? I'm not aware that that is the case...)<br>
<br>
In any case, perhaps not the best example to hold up in this discussion,<br>
since it brings up tangential issues.<br>
<br>
Dan<br>
<br>
<br>
--<br>
Any opinions expressed in this message are those of the author alone and do<br>
not necessarily reflect any position of the author's employer.<br>
<div><div class="h5"><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
At 10:37 AM -0500 3/5/13, Evan Leibovitch wrote:<br>
>For what it's worth...<br>
><br>
>At-Large has a similar diversity in view as I'm seeing here. What enabled<br>
>ALAC to, by and large, get past this to a single statement involved the<br>
>realization that this was indeed not a choice between absolutes, and that<br>
>the binary essence of the question should not be taken for granted and is<br>
>itself subject to challenge.<br>
><br>
>The writers of the statement, studying the At-Large debate (which wasn't<br>
>THAT different in substance from the one going on here), realized that it<br>
>was not good-versus-evil so much as benign-versus-harmful. Those amongst<br>
>us who defend closed generics (ie, the PoV expressed by Milton and Avri)<br>
>were not fans of the practise, and actually saw little public benefit to<br>
>most of them, but are unconvinced by the claims of harm. So we actually<br>
>found surprisingly widespread agreement that most closed generics won't<br>
>serve the public good, the disagreement was over whether the potential<br>
>harm of closed generics was sufficient for ICANN to override historical<br>
>policy consistency and change process mid-stream.<br>
><br>
>At the same time, many in At-Large who believed on principle that closed<br>
>generics are harmful (ie, Kathy's position) also came to understand that<br>
>the position was also not quite so absolute, that there are potential<br>
>implementations of closed generics that could benefit the public. Consider<br>
>that a number of new gTLD applicants -- notably those most under fire for<br>
>closed generics such as Google and Amazon -- don't necessarily make money<br>
>by selling domains -- they bring the potential for new business models.<br>
>What if Google wants to disrupt the domain industry the way it has already<br>
>disrupted the email, office software and GPS industries -- by giving away<br>
>domains but keeping control over the structure? Google already runs a free<br>
</div></div>>DNS service, and operates both Google+ and <<a href="http://blogger.com" target="_blank">http://blogger.com</a>><a href="http://blogger.com" target="_blank">blogger.com</a><br>
<div class="im">>under this model.<br>
>What if Amazon were to offer free .book domains to any bookstore and<br>
>publisher, but wanted to reserve the right to create its own policy to<br>
>kick out any subdomain operator that violated a code of conduct? It might<br>
>not be everyone's choice, but it's a legitimate option that could offer<br>
>the public benefit. By many people's interpretation of the AG such schemes<br>
>could only be done under a "closed" TLD. These are two examples, but they<br>
>offers a taste of the kind of public-benefit alternative -- of real<br>
>innovation in domain name distribution -- that can currently only be done<br>
>as a closed domain.<br>
><br>
>These two factors weighted heavily on the ability of ALAC to create a<br>
>single statement that acknowledges the diversity while asserting the<br>
>non-binary complexity of the issue.<br>
><br>
>HTH,<br>
><br>
>- Evan<br>
><br>
><br>
>On 5 March 2013 09:46, Kathy Kleiman<br>
</div><div class="im">><<mailto:<a href="mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com">kathy@kathykleiman.com</a>><a href="mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com">kathy@kathykleiman.com</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>
>Why? It does not change the positions of the letter (favoring nasty<br>
>closed generics). But it does change the debate to something more<br>
>respectful and less vitriol. Not a reason to sign on - but a reason to<br>
>support the process of disagreement...<br>
><br>
>Kathy<br>
><br>
><br>
>Seems a good suggestion to me.<br>
><br>
>will people sign on if it is changed?<br>
><br>
>avri<br>
><br>
>On 4 Mar 2013, at 23:09, Carlos A. Afonso wrote:<br>
><br>
>Hi people, I generally agree. I suggest we do not use derisive expressions<br>
>like "We find these claims to be hysterical...".<br>
><br>
>frt rgds<br>
><br>
>--c.a.<br>
><br>
>On 03/04/2013 06:22 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote:<br>
><br>
>Dear NCSG members:<br>
><br>
>A group of us, including so far Robin Gross, Avri Doria, Andrew Adams,<br>
>Nicolas Adam and Brenden Kuerbis, have developed a comment with ICANN on<br>
>the closed generic issue.<br>
>You can read our comments at this Google docs link:<br>
</div>><<a href="https://docs.google.com/document/d/1tPuEELJ2y6-d0hwF_qPupQb0V5OEFpqkMwcApDRNZf0/edit?usp=sharing" target="_blank">https://docs.google.com/document/d/1tPuEELJ2y6-d0hwF_qPupQb0V5OEFpqkMwcApDRNZf0/edit?usp=sharing</a>><a href="https://docs.google.com/document/d/1tPuEELJ2y6-d0hwF_qPupQb0V5OEFpqkMwcApDRNZf0/edit?usp=sharing" target="_blank">https://docs.google.com/document/d/1tPuEELJ2y6-d0hwF_qPupQb0V5OEFpqkMwcApDRNZf0/edit?usp=sharing</a><br>
<div class="im">>We can still add names to the list of supporters, or you could file a<br>
>quick and easy individual comment with ICANN expressing your support for<br>
>the statement after it comes out.<br>
><br>
>Milton L. Mueller<br>
>Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies<br>
>Internet Governance Project<br>
</div>><<a href="http://blog.internetgovernance.org" target="_blank">http://blog.internetgovernance.org</a>><a href="http://blog.internetgovernance.org" target="_blank">http://blog.internetgovernance.org</a><br>
<div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5">><br>
><br>
><br>
>--<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
>--<br>
><br>
>Evan Leibovitch<br>
>Toronto Canada<br>
><br>
>Em: evan at telly dot org<br>
>Sk: evanleibovitch<br>
>Tw: el56<br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br><div style="text-align:center"><div style="text-align:left">Evan Leibovitch</div><div style="text-align:left">Toronto Canada</div></div><blockquote style="margin:0 0 0 40px;border:none;padding:0px">
<div style="text-align:center"><div style="text-align:left">Em: evan at telly dot org</div></div><div style="text-align:center"><div style="text-align:left">Sk: evanleibovitch</div></div><div style="text-align:center"><div style="text-align:left">
Tw: el56</div></div></blockquote>
</div></div>