[NCSG-Discuss] FYI: The ALAC statement on closed generics

[Evan Leibovitch]

Hi all,

Here is the ALAC statement FYI, on which proponents of both major PoVs
("closed generics are wrong on principle" and "closed generics are benign
and in keeping with current practise") appeared able to find common ground.
It is being ratified by vote going on now.

- Evan

---------------------------

On the whole, the ALAC does not believe that unrestricted closed generics
provide public benefit and would prefer that TLDs -- especially for strings
representing categories -- were not allocated in a way that would lock out
broad access to sub-domains. Some members of At-Large believe, on
principle, that all closed generics are harmful to the public good. Others
believe that, while not necessarily being beneficial to end users, closed
gTLDs should be allowed as simply being consistent with existing practise
for lower-level domains.

However, in developing this response to the Board's request, the ALAC found
the issue to be far more nuanced than the above hard positions would
suggest. There may be innovative business models that might allow a closed
TLD to be in the public interest. An example might be a registry that makes
2nd level names available at no cost to anyone, but retains legal control
over them. This is similar to the model used by Facebook and many blog
hosting sites. Allowance should be made for applicants interested in
widespread sub-domain distribution that do not require domain-name sales as
a source of revenue, or for other forms of sub-domain allocation.

Whether a generic-word string is used with its generic meaning or in some
other context may also be relevant. The fictitious but famous computer
manufacturer, Orange Computers Inc. using the TLD ".orange" might be
acceptable, while the same string used as a closed TLD by a California
Orange Growers Cooperative (and not allowing access to orange producers
from Florida or Mediterranean and South American countries) might well be
considered unacceptable.

Allowing this nuanced approach would likely involve a case by case review
of how a TLD will be used and how its sub-domains will be allocated.
Moreover, it would require a contractual commitment to not change that
model once the TLD is delegated.

In summary, the ALAC believes that completely uncontrolled use of generic
words as TLDs is not something that ICANN should be supporting. However,
some instances of generic word TLDs could be both reasonable and have very
strong benefits of just the sort that ICANN was seeking when the TLD space
was opened. Such uses should not be excluded *a*s long as it can be
established that they serve the public interest.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20130304/eeefbbb4/attachment.html>