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

[McTim]

On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 10:36 PM, Carl Smith <lectriclou at hotmail.com> wrote:
> Milton,
>
> I have a problem with generic words being owned

I don't see these words being "owned" at all.

Running a registry is not the same as owning a word.

Besides, who is to say what is a generic word or not?

In short, I agree with MM here.

-- 
Cheers,

McTim
"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel


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.
>
>
>
>