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

[Carl Smith]

Andrei,

There is a simple para-dyne to answer many questions of why; "Follow the 
money trail".

Lou

On 2/7/2013 2:51 AM, Andrei Barburas wrote:
> I am wondering why didn't ICANN open up domain registrations for those 
> generic TLDs so anybody can register their .app/.music/.whatever domain?
>
> I think a lot of issues would have been avoided and from a revenue 
> perspective it would have been more profitable on the long term.
>
> Yet, this is only my personal opinion about this matter...
>
>
>
> *Andrei Barburas*
>
> Community Relations Services Officer
>
> International Institute for Communication and Development (IICD)
>
> P.O. Box 11586, 2502 AN The Hague, The Netherlands
>
> NPOC, ICANN member
>
>
> Mobile: +31 62 928 2879
>
> Phone: +31 70 311 7311
> Fax: +31 70 311 7322
> Website: www.iicd.org <http://www.iicd.org/>
>
> **People ********ICT  Development**
>
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 7:56 AM, Ron Wickersham <rjw at itsmyinternet.org 
> <mailto:rjw at itsmyinternet.org>> wrote:
>
>     A possible confusion exists for individual/consumer users of the
>     Internet
>     with regard to second-level host names in closed new gtld's.   See
>     below:
>
>
>     On Wed, 6 Feb 2013, 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 <http://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 <http://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 <http://book.com> before me, then I don't have any
>         right to use the domain book.com <http://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.
>
>
>     But in .com, there is a protection for trademarks at the second level,
>     and a mechanism to contest the _use_ of names at the second level
>     based
>     on confusing a consumer.
>
>     For instance, if I see the name of a bank, followed by .com, I don't
>     expect that wellsfargo.com <http://wellsfargo.com> will belong to
>     a competitive bank.  And if
>     .bank were to be an open tld, then Wells Fargo Bank would be able to
>     register wellsfargo.bank, and if someone else registered
>     wellsfargo.bank
>     the real wellsfargo.bank would be able to contest the registration.
>
>     Yet if, for instance, citi bank were to apply for and be granted
>     .bank, then a totally hands-off approach would permit them to
>     provide a web page
>     at wellsfargo.bank.   They are extremely unlikely to use that page to
>     ask for Wells Fargo Bank customers to log in with their password, but
>     they could create a page that offers Wells Fargo Bank customers a
>     special
>     offer to switch banks, and Wells Fargo would not have any mechanism to
>     contest the 2nd level use of wellsfargo.bank in this manner thru
>     ICANN.
>
>     Of course, web traffic is only a part of Internet capability.  
>     And I grant
>     that a solution to the above dilemma may not exist.   I am
>     interested in
>     hearing more discussion on second level in closed generic tld's.
>
>     -ron wickersham
>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20130207/2633c1b5/attachment-0001.html>