[NCSG-Discuss] Closed Generics are Against the Rules
Carl Smith
lectriclou at HOTMAIL.COM
Sun Feb 24 18:36:03 CET 2013
Exactly Alex,
Lou
On 2/24/2013 12:12 PM, Alex Gakuru wrote:
> But Avri,
>
> Let's take honey, for example. Someone registers the word to the
> exclusion of everyone else in the domain name space. Surely honey is
> harvested at many places around the world, therefore *all*
> somewhere.honey equally deserve registration with whomever rushed to
> grab the word. Else would mean advocating for English to be now
> considered as a proprietary language.
>
> Regards,
>
> Alex
>
> On Sun, Feb 24, 2013 at 7:00 PM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org
> <mailto:avri at acm.org>> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I disagree. I find no problems with closed generics, and having
> been part of the discussions that developed the policies know that
> they were just assumed to be a fact of life. Not something to be
> concerned about.
>
> I see no clear words that say a Registry can't use all of the
> names for its own purposes. not sure what uyou mean by 'own'.
>
> Yes, they need to treat all registrars equally, but that can be
> done, as long as other registrars are willing to provide
> registrations for cost without any outside marketing and for the
> sales or without the opportunity of selling of extra services.
> The rules say noting about having to give registrars a deal they
> like, only that all registrars must get the same deal.
>
> I tend to think that we are not going to achieve a NCSG wide
> position on this one.
>
> avri
>
> On 24 Feb 2013, at 16:40, Kathy Kleiman wrote:
>
> > Tx so much Alain, for your response, and your examples. It all
> seems to make sense when we see the examples...
> >
> > To those who asked about changing the rules, for many of us,
> barring Closed Generics *is not changing the rules,* but enforcing
> them.
> >
> > I do too much work in the regulatory field to believe in
> regulation by surprise. when I first saw the dozens and dozens of
> Closed Generics (it's really appalling), I went back to the words
> of the Applicant Guidebook, which includes the model Registry
> Agreement (the agreement all new gTLD registries will be asked to
> sign, and with limited exceptions, expected to sign).
> >
> > The words clearly, clearly say that a Registry cannot own all of
> its domain names -- basically, a registry must operate as a
> traditional registry -- unless it asks for an exception. That's
> embedded in 2.9 of the Registry Agreement, and its Registry Code
> of Conduct (called Specification (or exhibit) 9).
> >
> > Best,
> > Kathy
> > :
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> I personnally lean heavily in favor of Kathy's position. It
> seems quite reasonable to me for IBM, Accenture, Suzuki or Aga
> Khan Foundation (AKDN for AK Development Network) and many others
> to use their closed gTLD for internal purposes but pure generic
> words belong to everybody, period. So even AFAMILYCOMPANY applied
> for by Johnson Shareholdings Inc would affect not only the use of
> "family" by all but also discriminate against many others such as
> perhaps the millions of family-owned companies!
> >>
> >> Bill, I think the "Closed Generics" theme is big enough that it
> warrants an NCSG-wide approach in Bali with distinctive NCUC and
> NPOC events or sessions on different themes our respective Program
> Teams are probably working on right now.
> >>
> >> Alain
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 9:10 AM, William Drake
> <william.drake at uzh.ch <mailto:william.drake at uzh.ch>> wrote:
> >> Hi
> >>
> >> So there's clearly a diversity of views on this issue among
> reasonable people. This was also evident at the IGF meeting in
> Baku, where we spent some time on it in the context of a wider
> discussion of new gTLDs in the Critical Internet Resources main
> session (I co-moderatated, Milton spoke to the issue, as did
> Anriette Esterhuysen from NCUC member APC, the Brazilian
> ambassador, others... http://webcast.igf2012.com/ondemand/.)
> >>
> >> For this year's IGF in Bali, Alain and I discussed the
> possibility of proposing a joint NPOC/NCUC Open Forum session, and
> in addition the two constituencies could each organize their own
> workshops reflecting their respective priorities and
> possibilities. In this context, I'm wondering whether closed
> generics might not be a good topic for a NCUC workshop. We could
> easily get a solid MS panel together with strongly diverse views
> that would probably be of interest to the sort of broader,
> non-GNSO-insider audiences IGFs attract. I can already think of a
> number of developing country government, business, technical and
> CS folks who'd likely be eager to participate as speakers, and
> it's a nicely bounded problem set that'd lend itself to focused
> consideration of commercial and noncommercial arguments etc.
> >>
> >> After we get past the WSIS+10 and IGF meetings in Paris I may
> pitch the Program Team a formal proposal on this. If anyone would
> like to conspire, let me know.
> >>
> >> Bill
> >>
> >> On Feb 10, 2013, at 7:17 PM, Kathy Kleiman
> <Kathy at kathykleiman.com <mailto:Kathy at kathykleiman.com>> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Hi Edward and All,
> >>> I've been meaning to write for some time about Closed
> Generics. Since 1996, I've been fighting the abuse of generic
> words. The first huge domain name dispute battles took place over
> generic words - that trademark owners felt they could use their
> trademarks (which is, of course, a limited right to use a term for
> a specific category of goods and services) to stop ordinary
> people, organizations and entrepreneurs from using ordinary words
> in ordinary ways. We led a huge fight with Network Solutions, and
> then at the dawn of ICANN, to draft Domain Name Dispute Rules that
> protected generic words used in generic ways as part of the public
> domain -- as belonging to us all!
> >>>
> >>> So when I see so many applicants for "Closed Generic" New
> gTLDs -- using a generic word in a generic way and completely
> monopolizing it by *not* allowing your competitors to use it too,
> I am shocked: .APP, .BOOK, .CLOUD, .DRIVE, .MAP, .MOVIE, .NEWS,
> .SEARCH, .SHOP. .STORE, .BLOG, .ANTIVIRUS, .INSURANCE, .HAIR,
> .MAKEUP, .BABY -- These are generic words being used in generic
> ways (according to their applications) for the sole purpose of
> monopolizing the common term of an industry or business -- and
> keeping its competitors out.
> >>>
> >>> There is no way that L'Oréal could get trademarks on .SKIN,
> .SALON, .MAKEUP and .HAIR, as these words are part of the public
> domain name and available to All their competitors to use -- their
> trademarks are on MAYBELLINE, REDKIN, L'Oréal, and the share the
> generics as common descriptive terms. So it is against every
> public interest bone in my body to allow generic words used in
> generic ways to be monopolized by only one business or industry
> player.
> >>>
> >>> But is it against the rules? I went back to my work as
> Director of Policy for .ORG, as I was with .ORG through the end of
> the Applicant Guidebook work. I served on the Vertical Integration
> Working Group in a very active way, as well as the Registries
> group that reviewed every line of the "Base Registry Agreement"
> (the model contract for all new gTLDs). We had agreed that, in
> general, the base model of a Registry is "open" -- that Registries
> must work with ICANN-Accredited Registrars worldwide. Why? To
> reach Registrants worldwide -- to offer them domain names in their
> own languages, currencies and customs. (For example, NII
> Quaynor, a founder of NCUC and early Board member, is now one of
> the few Registrars in Africa, and equal access of his Registrants
> to domain names, on a nondiscriminatory basis, has always been
> important to our system).
> >>>
> >>> So no, I found that we had NOT agreed to Closed Generics. In
> fact, the base model of the New gTLD Registries was meant to be
> "open" -- and ICANN incorporated this "Open gTLD" model into its
> Base Registry Agreement (in the Applicant Guidebook). Section
> 2.9a and the Registry Code of Conduct. No Registry may favor a
> particular Registrar -- but provide Equal Access to its Registry
> Services and Data. Why? To be fair to Registrants! It's nowhere
> written that Verisign can't limit .COM domain names only to the NY
> Stock Exchange companies, or that .ORG can't limit .ORG
> registrations to only US organizations, but everyone knows if they
> did that, they would lose their accreditation with ICANN.
> Non-discrimination and Equal Access are part of our domain name
> DNA. (See "Base Agreement & Specifications", Specification 9,
> http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb).
> >>>
> >>> The initial Registry Code of Conduct had no exceptions. Then
> the Commercial Guys got upset-- why should a Dot-Brand TLD, e.g.
> .IBM, have to go through registrars to register domain names, and
> why should they have to register names to the public anyway?
> (Arguments also made in the Vertical Integration WG.) Special
> privileges for very limited use New TLDs - let IBM keep its domain
> names for its employees, franchisees, etc. And frankly, most of
> us agreed. So the next version of the Registry Code of Conduct
> came out with a narrow exception:
> >>>
> >>> ==> "6. Registry Operator may request an exemption to this
> Code of Conduct, and such exemption may be granted by
> ICANN in ICANN’s reasonable discretion, if Registry Operator
> demonstrates to ICANN’s reasonable satisfaction that (i) all
> domain name registrations in the TLD are registered to, and
> maintained by, Registry Operator for its own exclusive use, (ii)
> Registry Operator does not sell, distribute or transfer control or
> use of any registrations in the TLD to any third party that is not
> an Affiliate of Registry Operator, and (iii) application of this
> Code of Conduct to the TLD is not necessary to protect the public
> interest."
> >>>
> >>> It had a comment that made its intent very clear:
> >>> ===> [*Note: This draft Section 6 of the Registry Operator
> Code of Conduct has been added in response to comments received
> that suggested that the Code was not necessary for registries in
> which a single registrant uses the TLD solely for its own
> operations and does not sell registrations to third parties (e.g.
> a dot-BRAND)]
> (http://archive.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/draft-agreement-specs-redline-15apr11-en.pdf)
> >>>
> >>> And that's where we left it. Of course, some people in the
> Vertical Integration WG wanted much more, and some of them are on
> this list. And some wanted much less- that all gTLDs be open. The
> compromise was to allow dot-BRANDs to be closed, but certainly not
> any string any applicant wanted for any reasons. Generic words
> used in generic ways belong to everyone in the industry or
> business :-).
> >>>
> >>> I look forward to our discussion, and happy to provide links
> letters and public comment forums.
> >>>
> >>> All the best,
> >>> Kathy
> >>> p.s. Quick additional note on "restricted TLDs." In case
> anyone is wondering, "restricted TLDs" are generally OK among
> those deeply concerned about Closed Generics because restricting
> .BANK to real banks or .LAWYER to lawyers with actual credentials
> seems consistent with non-discrimination and equal access
> provisions -- provided the criteria and fairly and globally applied...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Edward Morris wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> :
> >>>> Kathy,
> >>>>
> >>>> I am sympathetic to your position. My concern is that any
> change now to the program will embroil ICANN in mass litigation
> that will paralyze the organization for a considerable period
> going forward. We briefly spoke in Los Angeles about some recent
> legal hires by Amazon: some pretty impressive hires. Can you
> convince me that my concerns are invalid? Might not a better
> approach at this point be to pressure the applicants themselves to
> open up the generic domains, to make it socially unacceptable for
> large companies to operate closed Tlds?
> >>>>
> >>>> Ed
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 8:26 PM, Kathy Kleiman
> <kathy at kathykleiman.com <mailto:kathy at kathykleiman.com>> wrote:
> >>>> Quote from Jeff Neuman (VP Neustar) in Amsterdam last week:
> >>>> Nearly all of those applying for Closed gTLDs would fail to
> qualify based on his reading of the Code of Conduct.
> >>>>
> >>>> Article show concern around the world for TLDs which are
> generic strings/words of an entire industry or business (DOCS,
> BOOK, SEARCH, ANTIVIRUS, WATCHES) being dominated and controlled
> by a single industry/business (and only one of many competitors).
> that's being a registry to monoplize a word, not to offer
> registry services.
> >>>>
> >>>> - The Hindu: Beauty lies in the ‘domain’ of the highest
> bidder (Op-ed piece by Parminder Jeet Singh, Executive Director,
> IT for Change, in special consultative status with the United
> Nations Economic and Social Council (IGF attendee)), 12/24/2012,
> http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/beauty-lies-in-the-domain-of-the-highest-bidder/article3929612.ece
> >>>>
> >>>> - Forbes: The Battle For The Cloud: Amazon Proposes
> 'Closed' Top-Level .CLOUD Domain, 11/6/2012,
> http://www.forbes.com/sites/reuvencohen/2012/11/06/the-battle-for-the-cloud-amazon-proposes-closed-top-level-cloud-domain/?partner=yahootix
> >>>>
> >>>> - Techworld: Problems arise where one entity is seeking
> exclusive use of strings with broad applicability, 11/21/2012,
> http://news.techworld.com/networking/3412616/icann-issues-early-warnings-over-controversial-top-level-domains/
> >>>>
> >>>> I am deeply, deeply concerned!
> >>>> Best,
> >>>> Kathy
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> A quote from Karen Lentz (ICANN legal staff): "Under the
> current rules, there's nothing that would prevent the use of
> closed generics, which is focused on the issue of who can register
> a name."
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>>>> From: NCSG-Discuss [
> >>>>>> mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
> <mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU>
> >>>>>> ] On Behalf
> >>>>>> Of William Drake
> >>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2013 1:18 PM
> >>>>>> To:
> >>>>>> NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
> <mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Subject: [NCSG-Discuss]
> new-gtld-committee-not-sure-how-to-handle-
> >>>>>> closed-generic-applications
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> surprise!
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> http://www.thedomains.com/2013/02/05/icann-new-gtld-committee-not
> >>>>>> -
> >>>>>> sure-how-to-handle-closed-generic-applications/
> >>>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Alain Berranger, B.Eng, MBA
> >> Member, Board of Directors, CECI, http://www.ceci.ca
> >> Executive-in-residence, Schulich School of Business,
> www.schulich.yorku.ca <http://www.schulich.yorku.ca>
> >> Treasurer, Global Knowledge Partnership Foundation,
> www.gkpfoundation.org <http://www.gkpfoundation.org>
> >> NA representative, Chasquinet Foundation, www.chasquinet.org
> <http://www.chasquinet.org>
> >> Chair, NPOC, NCSG, ICANN, http://npoc.org/
> >> O:+1 514 484 7824; M:+1 514 704 7824
> >> Skype: alain.berranger
> >>
> >>
> >> AVIS DE CONFIDENTIALITÉ
> >> Ce courriel est confidentiel et est à l’usage exclusif du
> destinataire ci-dessus. Toute personne qui lit le présent message
> sans en être le destinataire, ou l’employé(e) ou la personne
> responsable de le remettre au destinataire, est par les présentes
> avisée qu’il lui est strictement interdit de le diffuser, de le
> distribuer, de le modifier ou de le reproduire, en tout ou en
> partie . Si le destinataire ne peut être joint ou si ce document
> vous a été communiqué par erreur, veuillez nous en informer sur le
> champ et détruire ce courriel et toute copie de celui-ci. Merci
> de votre coopération.
> >>
> >> CONFIDENTIALITY MESSAGE
> >> This e-mail message is confidential and is intended for the
> exclusive use of the addressee. Please note that, should this
> message be read by anyone other than the addressee, his or her
> employee or the person responsible for forwarding it to the
> addressee, it is strictly prohibited to disclose, distribute,
> modify or reproduce the contents of this message, in whole or in
> part. If the addressee cannot be reached or if you have received
> this e-mail in error, please notify us immediately and delete this
> e-mail and destroy all copies. Thank you for your cooperation.
> >>
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> >
> >
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20130224/d141bc50/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Ncuc-discuss
mailing list