[NCSG-Discuss] Closed Generics [proposals]

[Kathy Kleiman]

Easy Milton, Richemont has applied for "watches" and "jewelry" in 
Chinese characters. I oppose those too.
Kathy

It's true that as a hot issue this would be good for one of our policy 
conferences, but the program committee was more focused on issues 
specific to China's internet, and the closed-generic debate is more of 
an American or western debate that has no special relevance to China. 
Maybe in Durban?
>
> I would, however, like to force all opponents of closed to generics to 
> be able to conclusively identify a generic term when it appears in 
> Chinese characters ;-)
>
> --MM
>
> *From:*NCSG-Discuss [mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU] *On Behalf 
> Of *Maria Farrell
> *Sent:* Wednesday, February 27, 2013 3:46 AM
> *To:* NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
> *Subject:* Re: [NCSG-Discuss] Closed Generics [proposals]
>
> 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 
> <mailto: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
>


-- 


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20130227/2cc136c4/attachment-0001.html>