[NCSG-Discuss] new-gtld-committee-not-sure-how-to-handle-closed-generic-applications

[Carl Smith]

Milton,

I have a problem with generic words being owned by some individual or 
etc..  For example, hypothetically, suppose that in the phone book, the 
first John Smith was the only one in the world who could be allowed to 
use John Smith in any phone book and by extension in any other listing 
of phone numbers.  How many John Smiths would be prohibited from having 
the equal right to list their own given name in possibly any way?  If we 
are still  intent on using generics, we would need some kind of 
delimiter to differentiate between others who should have the right to 
use the common language they know and understand.  In this case, only 
one specific delimiter would need be unique.  That delimiter should be 
the only thing owned to identify the specific individual.  With the 
postal system, for instance, the address.  Some people own an address.  
Often the address may be rented or least.  But the complete address is 
the only unique entity involved and not each of the generic words of 
which it is composed.  The ownership of words will certainly lead to 
commercial oppression of individuals all over the world.  Let us look to 
a wider picture of circumstances of what we do lest we find a huge 
problem in the future.  Commercial interest's greatest wet dream is to 
have a monopoly. Is that what we are willing to accept?

Lou


On 2/6/2013 3:15 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote:
>
> I stand ready to be educated by those with different views.
>
> OK. Here is a different view.
>
> It is not a free speech issue at all. It is a vertical integration or 
> business  model issue, exclusively. Some registries want to create a 
> specific image or environment inside a particular TLD. Those 
> registries are not trying to sell domain name registrations per se, 
> they are selling or doing other things with the domain, perhaps even 
> giving domains away to promote a service. They might also use their 
> authority to control registrations to prevent speculators from 
> grabbing all the "good" names, or to impose a taxonomy on the second 
> level, or to prevent undesirable types from squatting or tarnishing 
> the overall image of the domain.
>
> Other registries want to maximize the number of registrations under a 
> TLD. In that case, it makes sense to be "open". In other words, if you 
> are a registrar and want to sell hundreds of thousands or millions of 
> domains to whoever will buy them for whatever reason, then you want 
> "open" or FCFS TLDs.
>
> Not surprisingly, the real push for "open" and against "closed" TLDs 
> is coming from traditional registrars who want all the potentially 
> popular domains to be available for them to exploit as registrars. The 
> free speech and competition policy claims are pure diversions.
>
> Take .BOOK for example. If someone wants to open that up for anyone on 
> a first-come, first-served basis, there are advantages and 
> disadvantages. Sure, I could register networksandstates.book in an 
> open domain, if I wanted to. But someone else might register it before 
> me, or someone might register nonfiction.books (so there's that 
> "terrible" appropriation of a generic term again). Wrose, 600 
> different link farms might appropriate other generic terms (sex.books, 
> good.books) and just pile pay per click ads onto them, so that anyone 
> using the domain would never know whether a specific domain was useful 
> or just a commercial diversion.
>
> I don't think it's ICANN's job to say that either one of these 
> business models is the right one. I think there is an important place 
> for both models, and the proper decision maker to decide which one to 
> use is the person who risked about $1 million to get the domain and 
> operate it.
>
> The competition policy claims are especially laughable, because unless 
> you confuse the market for books with the market for names under 
> .book, it is obvious that possession of the latter does not do 
> anything to give you monopoly control of the former.
>
> Likewise, I don't see the freedom issue here. In fact, freedom of 
> expression and property rights are mutually reinforcing in this case. 
> If I register a domain like .IGP and want to use it to push a 
> particular topic or point of view, it's my right NOT to allow, say, 
> advocates of Scientology to register domains under IGP. If I have to 
> lend my domain to promotion of causes and ideas I don't support, my 
> freedom of association and expression rights are being restricted.
>
> Edward, you have a domain under USC.EDU. USC is not obliged, on free 
> speech grounds, to allow me to register a name under their domain. 
> This is not a restriction of my right of free speech so much as it is 
> an extension of USC's right of free association and free speech. There 
> are plenty of domains to accommodate diverse views.
>
> Generic words in the SLD space have been registered - and restricted 
> to what their owners want them to do - for more than a decade. I don't 
> see how TLD vs SLD changes the issue in any relevant way. Would you 
> contend that your right to freedom of expression is restricted because 
> you can't register <foo>.book.com? If not, why is it a restriction to 
> not be allowed to register  <foo>.book? I think we would both probably 
> agree that if someone else registers book.com before me, then I don't 
> have any right to use the domain book.com. Why is it any different for 
> .book?
>
> Remember, new domains are NOT .com; i.e., they have no monopoly power 
> or lock in power on existing registrants. No one has to use them or 
> register in them.
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20130206/5e437860/attachment-0001.html>