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

[David Cake]

I find this statement very reasonable. 

My position on closed TLDs is quite similar to ALACs as expressed here - I find the case for closed TLDs that exist simply for to gain a commercial advantage (even a relatively minor one) by privileged access to a generic term very weak, but I can certainly think of many cases where innovative uses of TLD may be best achieved by it being closed in the sense required by ICANN. 

I read this statement, in the second last paragraph, as being broadly supportive of something resembling the PIC, without committing to that particular implementation or process. Would that be a reasonable reading?


Regards

David

On 05/03/2013, at 5:42 AM, Evan Leibovitch <evan at TELLY.ORG> wrote:

> 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 as 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/20130305/32534f3b/attachment-0001.html>