[NCSG-Discuss] Closed Generics - a letter together
Carl Smith
lectriclou at HOTMAIL.COM
Mon Feb 25 23:02:04 CET 2013
Ultimately,
The current DNS system was established to make human use easier as
compared to the actual IP4 or eventually IP6 machine addresses. IP4 is
more network specific and requires additional routing for sub-nets. IP6
could possibly establish a unique address for every machine. But IP6
presents even more confusion for human use. Too, is a more human wordy
system. A more equitable and efficient system must evolve. We surely
at this juncture, should not give ownership of words to private
individuals. Many people may have many of the same words as attributes
to their natural address. As long as the complete address is capable of
identifying the unique recipient, there is no need for anyone to own the
words themselves. My last name is Smith. I often get mail routed to my
mail box with everything correct accept the name. The mailman expects
me to correct the error with "Not at this address" and send it back. In
the machine age, this should be automatic. It would instantly send
warning to the sender as invalid. We must move to a better addressing
scheme rather than panic and give away our language to those who would
charge us to use it. Our current scheme is archaic and must be updated
with the advances in society not just band-aids.
I am old and possibly obsolete myself, but I had great success using
common sense then, and it still works just perfect. Observe the beasts
faults and venerability before you just spit on it. You'll probably just
piss it off.
Lou
On 2/25/2013 3:40 PM, Kristina Macaulay wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> I'm noting 3 main points of concerns here.
> Excluding McTim and Miltons objections to them.
>
> Anyone got other angles to add, regarding concerns…which was the point
> of "a letter together"?
>
> Warmly,
>
> Kristina
>
>
> On 25 Feb 2013, at 20:25, Mark Leiser <markleiser at GMAIL.COM
> <mailto:markleiser at GMAIL.COM>> wrote:
>
>> "If the gTLD is for closed generic use, then the gTLD will only be
>> used by an organisation for their purposes."
>>
>> That is very subjective and problematic in my opinion...
>>
>> For example, if I own .music and I start a band called "I CAN SUCKS"
>> - the gTLD used by the Company registering .music has the purpose of
>> giving bands a platform to reach their fans. They do nothing other
>> than sell to authorized bands space on the web to market their bands.
>> They have a vested interest in their purpose being to have space for
>> any band that applies, REGARDLESS of the band name-hence the
>> censorship concerns.
>>
>>
>> Sincerely,
>> Mark Leiser
>> Mark R. Leiser, Phd Student
>> School of Law, Humanities & Social Sciences Faculty
>> PGR Room, Lord Hope Building
>> University of Strathclyde
>> 141 St James Road,
>> Glasgow G4 0LT
>> Scotland
>>
>> Mobile: +447748689142
>> Email: markleiser at gmail.com <mailto:markleiser at gmail.com>
>> Twitter: http://twitter.com/#!/mleiser <http://twitter.com/#%21/mleiser>
>> LinkedIN: http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=189149411&trk=tab_pro
>> Google+: https://plus.google.com/u/0/105289982691060086995/posts
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 8:06 PM, Kristina Macaulay
>> <kristinamac at mac.com <mailto:kristinamac at mac.com>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Milton,
>>
>> I will attempt to respond how I see this as a long-term issue.
>>
>> If you have a domain name, well that is not the same to a gTLD.
>> The ownership of a gTLD is exclusive to the terms of use of the gTLD.
>> If the gTLD is for closed generic use, then the gTLD will only be
>> used by an organisation for their purposes.
>>
>> How you chose to use your domain name, is subjective to that one
>> domain, unless you are on the reserved list, and have privileges
>> of unique usage. example "red cross".
>> However a gTLD, is a fixed definite in the english language there
>> will only be one .book.
>> It gives an exclusive right, as the reserved list does to the
>> word association with "red cross". If you consider the arguments
>> around who has the right over the word "olympic" "red cross" then
>> the same argument is applied to the gTLD.
>>
>> I have provide an angle of approach.
>>
>> Warmly,
>>
>> Kristina
>>
>> On 25 Feb 2013, at 19:49, Milton L Mueller <mueller at SYR.EDU
>> <mailto:mueller at SYR.EDU>> wrote:
>>
>>> Kristina
>>> It _/is/_ an issue related to censorship, and you are on the
>>> wrong side of it. You are telling anyone who registers certain
>>> kinds of words that ICANN and its "community" will be able to
>>> dictate what kind of content goes under it. You are eliminating
>>> a domain owner's editorial discretion, even without any claim
>>> that there is a monopoly.
>>> Here is a simple way for undecided people to make up their mind
>>> on this issue in a reasonable way:
>>> We own a generic second-level domain:
>>> *internetgovernance.org <http://internetgovernance.org/>***
>>> Internet governance is a generic term.
>>> Here is a direct challenge to Kathy, Alain, Norbert and
>>> Kristina: Please tell me why you have a right to register a
>>> third-level domain underinternetgovernance.org
>>> <http://internetgovernance.org/>. Explain to me why OUR domain
>>> should be forced to resolve YOUR registrations, which may
>>> contain positions we don't agree with, which are irrelevant to
>>> the purpose of our site, or maybe even destructive of it.
>>> If you can't answer that question for my SLD, you can't make the
>>> same case for a TLD. There is no difference.
>>> I am really looking forward to the kind of explanations I will
>>> get. I suspect I will get silence, or some rather lame excuses.
>>> *From:*NCSG-Discuss [mailto:NCSG-
>>> <mailto:NCSG->DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
>>> <mailto:DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU>]*On Behalf Of*Kristina Macaulay
>>>
>>> *Sent:*Sunday, February 24, 2013 3:16 PM
>>> *To:*NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
>>> <mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU>
>>> *Subject:*Re: [NCSG-Discuss] Closed Generics - a letter together
>>> I'd be happy to contribute or review any statements regarding
>>> this issue, as I too feel strongly that Closed Generic words
>>> must not become exclusive or restricted as proposed.
>>> This is a non-commercial issue.
>>> I know it's not related to censorship or copyright, but it has a
>>> similar notion of precedence of*_exclusive perpetuity_*right
>>> over something…on this occasion it will be a generic term.
>>> *This MUST never happen!!!!*
>>> Warmly,
>>> Kristina
>>>
>>> On 24 Feb 2013, at 16:40, Avri Doria <avri at ACM.ORG
>>> <mailto:avri at ACM.ORG>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Obviously I am not volunteering for this, but
>>>
>>> I think it is a good idea. I think at this point one of the
>>> best things we can all collectively offer are strong statements
>>> from our various perspectives on this.
>>>
>>> I was planing to work on my own personal statement on why this
>>> is not a problem and something that was expected, but would
>>> gladly work with others to produce a common statement several of
>>> us could sign on to.
>>>
>>> avri
>>>
>>> On 24 Feb 2013, at 16:44, Kathy Kleiman wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Dear Alain and All,
>>> I have a question. Who would like to work with me on a statement
>>> of individuals and organizations within the NCSG? Obviously, we
>>> don't have consensus and this will not be a Stakeholder Group
>>> statement, but there seem to be a lot of us with similar
>>> concerns - across NPOC and NCUC. And further, the issue of
>>> generic words used in generic ways is a classic noncommercial
>>> issue. It's the balance to trademark law...
>>>
>>> If you are interested in reviewing a statement or letter, please
>>> let me know, and we'll create a subgroup.
>>> If anyone would like to work with me on crafting a statement or
>>> letter, welcome!
>>>
>>> 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
>>> ] 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
>>> <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 <tel:%2B1%20514%20484%207824>; M:+1 514 704
>>> 7824 <tel:%2B1%20514%20704%207824>
>>> 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/20130225/2634934b/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Ncuc-discuss
mailing list