[NCSG-Discuss] Closed Generics [proposals]

[Kristina Macaulay]

Hi on the issue of ''closed Generics' I sent the Kleiman's letter to different official parties, whom I though would have an interest for example .book …

The Oxford University Press, did not see the need to raise an objection. Below was the response I got.
I'm awaiting to hear from http://www.elsevier.com/. 
Also from http://www.europeana.eu/portal/ - But I will imagine no response. 
I've done the same for international cloud service providers etc… but like wise.

That's where we are at.


Thanks for your call and email; we are unable to help at this time.
 
Best wishes,
Nicola
 
Nicola Burton | nicola.burton at oup.com
Oxford University Press | Great Clarendon Street | Oxford | OX2 6DP
01865 353911 | 07921 882185 

On 27 Feb 2013, at 10:11, clarinette <clarinettet at GMAIL.COM> wrote:

> Bringing to your attention:
> "Ron Paul, former Representative and candidate for U.S. President, has filed a complaint with ICANN over ownership of the domain names ronpaul.com and ronpaul.org, currently owned by Ron Paul supporters. Dr. Paul says the current owners should give up the names because he has a common law trademark on his name. There is some dispute over whether the owners offered to sell Dr. Paul the names and if so, for what sum. More here from FoxNews, here from the Huffington Post. "
> 
> On 27 February 2013 08:46, Maria Farrell <maria.farrell at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hosting a discussion in Beijing would be a great idea. People are eager to debate it so would come to our meeting. 
> 
> What do we need to do to make it happen..?
> 
> Maria
> 
> 
> On 27 February 2013 06:14, Dan Krimm <dan at musicunbound.com> wrote:
> As I absorb the two sides of this discussion (seeing merits in both) I'm
> finding myself wanting a more conceptual framework in which to evaluate the
> points.
> 
> Technically, a domain (TLD) is a domain (2LD) is a domain (3LD).  [Point
> Milton]
> 
> Administratively, different levels have different agents of control.  It
> seems to me that in one sense the *control* is the important thing.  Who
> gets to determine who gets to have/control one of these, at whatever level?
> [Point Kathy]
> 
> If TLDs were ubiquitous (following their being cheap and easy to set up) it
> wouldn't matter so much who controlled one string or another because there
> would be robust competition and alternatives.  Milton's stance would be
> supported by real non-scarcity in TLDs.
> 
> In fact, though, even though TLDs are being opened up from near stasis, the
> barrier to entry of application fee and the simple fact of finite
> administrative bandwidth in processing applications means that there will
> still be some degree of meaningful scarcity in the system for the
> foreseeable future.
> 
> In that case, is there a strategic advantage (economic/political) in
> getting the string before someone else?  (Especially if alternatives are
> not easy to come by -- like if .book exists, but not all those others like
> .bks, etc.)  Seems there could be, and that should be a practical
> consideration even if in principle it ought to be moot.
> 
> Or it could *all* be moot if no one really uses domains to discover web
> sites anymore.  What is the real, practical economic/political value of
> controlling a TLD?  [Point Andrew]
> 
> Some points here are contingent upon contingencies of current TLD policy --
> in principle they could be mooted by a more global change in policy, but
> that more global change in policy may not be realistically forthcoming
> given the quango-mire that is ICANN.
> 
> So, what I'd love to see is a tracing of a dependency-structure for current
> and proposed policies.
> 
> I'm nowhere near working this out comprehensively myself, but would love to
> see those more experienced with the situation in the long term do so, if
> possible.
> 
> I think Pro/Con can lead us toward this (sort of a case-study discovery
> process), but I don't think it will get us all the way there by itself.
> Not to discourage it at all, but maybe let's aim further too, yes?
> 
> Dan
> 
> PS: Regrettably, I can't be present at any forthcoming in-person meetings,
> Beijing or otherwise.  But, I can occasionally get to email when I have a
> passing opportunity.  Maybe I can offer some questions/comments along the
> way as the discussion develops.
> 
> 
> --
> Any opinions expressed in this message are those of the author alone and do
> not necessarily reflect any position of the author's employer.
> 
> 
> 
> At 12:41 PM +0100 2/26/13, Avri Doria wrote:
> >Hi,
> >
> >I think this is a great idea, and something that would best be done by
> >someone who was not partisan on the issue.
> >
> >Where you offering?
> >
> >avri
> >
> >On 26 Feb 2013, at 12:20, Clarinettet wrote:
> >
> >> Hi all,
> >>
> >> May I submit one easy suggestion. Obviously, as every option, there are
> >>pros and cons. To adopt a common position, we need to balance the pros
> >>and cons. I suggest a worksheet to be created with two columns
> >>representing each side's views and vote from there. That way, everyone
> >>can validity judge and discuss. It's not very easy to follow discussions
> >>on series of emails.
> >>
> >> Do you agree?
> >>
> >> Tara Taubman
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Internet & Privacy Lawyer - LLM
> Keep the internet safe
> http://FlyAKite.org/

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20130227/a259a223/attachment-0001.html>