[NCSG-Discuss] Closed Generics [proposals]

[Carl Smith]

Thank you Kathy,

Lou


On 2/27/2013 8:32 PM, Kathy Kleiman wrote:
> 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/20130227/8d66ebb5/attachment-0001.html>