Closed New gTLDs - "Closed Gardens"

[Avri Doria]

Hi

Thanks for the working URL.  Having read the specific text, I see no way to interpret that section as prohibiting the private use of a generic name.  Of course I know that due to the beauty of essential linguistic ambiguity, in law anything can be argued to mean anything.

As for the free speech issue, does this not fall on the side of the applicant for the gTLD.  Who are we to tell them they can't use a word for their own purposes.  Is this a new authority we wish to grant to ICANN - to determine which non trademarked or 'non-sensistive' words are allowed in the DNS.

I am glad you are not looking for the NCSG or NCUC to sign on to this.  BTW,  I beleive  it would have make sense to send the appeal to the entire discuss list in that event too.

And I do not fault you for sharing it.  It is a very interesting subject that obviously needs to be discussed.  I was just sharing my view on the issue.

avri


On 5 Sep 2012, at 16:21, Kathy Kleiman wrote:

> Hi All,
> Here's the link to the letter: 
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZUNlookOWyaSW8lXfi_37zVFsVk9xcxncvmE0uwPEFY/edit
> 
> Avri, this was certainly not an appeal for the NCSG as a whole, as that I would have presented to the Executive Committee. It was meant to share something that I have heard talked about a lot, and with a great deal of concern. When we negotiated and edited many of the rules for new gTLDs, we anticipated trademark issues (now called "legal rights objections"), but many of us did not envision the broad move to apply for regular words, and seek to "close them off. 
> 
> That's different, I think, than Community TLDs, and the creation of a global community and the use of a TLD for that community.  So given that this issue has direct implications, some think, for speech issues, I thought this thoughtful letter should be brought to your attention.  In large part because the person who drafted it, Michele, has thought deeply about these issues.
> 
> Best,
> Kathy:
>> Hi,
>> 
>> For some reason I cannot see the fiull version.  But even from what I read here, I certainly do not support it.
>> 
>> I beleive that we always knew that this was a possibility that people would use Generic TLDs for closed usage.
>> 
>> Section 6 of what?  Module 6?  Section 6 of the proposed contract on Fees?  I do not see anything in this that covers the permissibility of not having any external registrations.  In any case, any registration they do have, even for internal purposes, would need to be done by Accredited Registrars and incurr fees.
>> 
>> But in any case I have seen nothing in either the Guidebook or the GNSO recommendations against this possibility.
>> 
>> And as I heard Milton argue somewhere, no one seemed to have a problem with Barnes & Noble using book.com for its own closed purposes.  What is the difference?  Millions and millions of .com versus only Thousands  of gTLDs in this round?
>> 
>> Additionally I think this argument would run into contradiction with the notion that some community TLDs will restrict to whom they sell.  
>> 
>> I suggest we avoid signing this appeal.
>> 
>> avri
>> 
>> PS: but agree completely that Michelle is wonderful.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On 5 Sep 2012, at 15:17, Kathy Kleiman wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>> Hi All,
>>> I would like to share with you a letter being circulated by Michele Neylon, the wonderful Blacknight registrar (and the only registrar in Ireland).  It deals with new gTLDs that are "closed gardens" -- generic words that some companies have applied for as new gTLDs and will keep "closed" -- not open for general second-level domain name registration.  These include some applicants for .BLOG and .CLOUD, among many others.
>>> 
>>> It's a powerful letter with strong free speech/freedom of expression arguments. Concerns are shared by registries, registrars and registrants -- and Michele is looking for Signatories. 
>>> 
>>> Please take a moment to look at the letter, and let Michele know if you can sign on (name, organization).  Michele is cc'ed on this email, and can be reached at 
>>> michele at blacknight.ie
>>>  
>>> 
>>> ----- 
>>> Here's the full version with current signatories : 
>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZUNlookOWyaSW8lXfi_37zVFsVk9xcxncvmE0uwPEFY/editHere
>>>  are two quotes from the 
>>> 
>>> Here are two quotes from the letter: 
>>> "Based on our collective industry experience, we are of the opinion that the underlying intention of Section 6 was to allow for the operation of closed gTLDs only under very defined circumstances.  
>>> Specifically, that closed gTLDs should be reserved for only those strings in which the applicant possesses established (i.e., legally recognized) intellectual property rights, basically brand names.  We believe that this interpretation of Section 6 is inherently logical especially in view of the discussions that preceded the opening of gTLDs -- which focused, in very large part, on expanding choices and opportunities as well as promoting innovation, for Internet consumers worldwide."
>>> 
>>> "Further,  generic words used in a generic way belong to all people. It is inherently in the public interest to allow access to generic new gTLDs to the whole of the Internet Community, e.g., .BLOG, .MUSIC, .CLOUD. Allowing everyone to register and use second level domain names of these powerful, generic TLDs is exactly what we envisioned the New gTLD Program would do. In contrast, to allow individual Registry Operators to segregate and close-off common words for which they do not possess intellectual property rights in effect allows them to circumvent nation-states’ entrenched legal processes for obtaining legitimate and recognized trademark protections."
>>> ----
>>> Best, 
>>> Kathy 
>>> Kathy Kleiman
>>> Internet Counsel, Fletcher, Heald & Hildreth
>>> Co-Founder, NCUC
>>> 
>