Closed New gTLDs - "Closed Gardens"

[Milton L Mueller]

From: NCSG-Discuss [mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU] On Behalf Of David-who-agrees-with-Milton Cake

Amazon don't have a trademark on book - and we would never let them have one. So why should we grant them any exclusive rights on .book, to be used only for their own branded product?


Ø  That's the point about open and free: ICANN doesn't get to decide who has a "right" to it. Whoever gets it, gets it. Whoever is granted .BOOK will do with it what they will. To me, as an advocate of Internet freedom, it doesn't matter if it is Amazon or a group of whining GNSO members trying (in vain, and at great length and expense) to force whoever uses .BOOK to adopt their favored policies. All we are debating is what policies and procedures will dictate registration in or use of that domain. Any attempt to collectively determine this is a needless invitation to perpetual regulation and conflict. Haven't we had enough of that crap with the trademark people, who think any appropriation and use of words should be subject to THEIR precious concerns? You are just reproducing all their arguments and all their techniques.

And I disagree with Milton on this - the space is vast, yes, but not all strings are equal, and there are no synonyms for book of equal quality.
Yes, it isn't a monopoly, but it is a significant competitive advantage that I don't think we should be selling exclusive rights to.


o   Oy veh. You are confusing a domain name string with its referent. In other words, you believe words are magic talismans. You think that if I control a dns string that corresponds to a word, I control (or have a "significant competitive advantage over") the market or all the things that that word stands for. Bollocks. Can you provide me with any evidence for this claim? And can you tell me why the same logic doesn't apply at the second level under .com? I have already shown that Books.com is controlled by a failing bookseller: Barnes and Noble. Someone paid a lot of money for BUSINESS.COM back in the day - did they control all business? Possession of domain names is helpful supplement to a good service and marketing strategy. Sure, they have some value, and some have more value than others. That's why they are contested. But the idea that you are selling exclusive control of markets is just nonsense.

o   But, since you believe in verbal magic, I am going to call you "Dave-who-agrees-with-Milton" for the rest of your life, and get others to do so as well. This will guarantee that you will agree with me, and abandon your foolish views. I like this kind of magic.

Restricted registration (not the same as closed) may well be in the public interest in some cases. I think the case for restricting .bank to banks is reasonable, even if we use the word bank for some other purposes (food bank, seed bank, etc). And restricting .ngo to NGOs etc.


o   Dave-who-agrees-with-Milton, the DNS can't be run on casual determinations as to what is "reasonable". BANK is just as generic as BOOK. If you think one can be closed and the other can't, you are in effect proposing a regulatory distinction that must be transposed into a rule that can be impartially applied to any and every TLD application for the next 50 years.  You are then proposing a kind of regulation of acceptable use of words that is far more injurious to freedom than whatever Amazon does with .BOOK. Think, please, about the policy consequences of your position. Do you cherish the idea of spending another 6 years in the ICANN-GNSO-ALAC-GAC morass deciding a) what is a generic term, b) which of those terms are "reasonably" subject to restricted registration c) wtf the "public interest" in this is across any and all strings? Can you imagine all the crap that would be piled onto such a regulatory process by all the special interests involved? Do you really want to go down that road? Do you REALLY understand what you are getting into?

I'm OK with .brands having closed registration - the logic is essentially the original, public interest, case for trademarks, that it protects consumer interests to prevent attempts to claim false association.


o   I am ok with anyone using a domain for whatever the heck they like, as long as it doesn't constitute a crime or a tort.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20120906/c2dd83c2/attachment-0001.html>