[NCSG-Discuss] NCSG members and the closed generic issue

[Evan Leibovitch]

On 6 March 2013 01:19, Dan Krimm <dan at musicunbound.com> wrote:

> Forgive a tiny tangential nit-pick here, but it may be worth noting that
> "Google" originated as a misspelling of the number name "googol" and so I'm
> not sure that "Google" should be considered a true generic, even if it
> would be operated as closed.
>

Google has submitted many applications -- including for some very genetic
word strings.

Conversely, I am not aware of anyone claiming anywhere that .google is a
closed generic.

- Evan




>
> More like a brand that uses "Kleen" in its name to elicit the idea of
> "clean"...
>
> (Unless legitimate dictionaries might be including the misspelling as a
> legitimate alternate spelling?  I'm not aware that that is the case...)
>
> In any case, perhaps not the best example to hold up in this discussion,
> since it brings up tangential issues.
>
> Dan
>
>
> --
> 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 10:37 AM -0500 3/5/13, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
> >For what it's worth...
> >
> >At-Large has a similar diversity in view as I'm seeing here. What enabled
> >ALAC to, by and large, get past this to a single statement involved the
> >realization that this was indeed not a choice between absolutes, and that
> >the binary essence of the question should not be taken for granted and is
> >itself subject to challenge.
> >
> >The writers of the statement, studying the At-Large debate (which wasn't
> >THAT different in substance from the one going on here), realized that it
> >was not good-versus-evil so much as benign-versus-harmful. Those amongst
> >us who defend closed generics (ie, the PoV expressed by Milton and Avri)
> >were not fans of the practise, and actually saw little public benefit to
> >most of them, but are unconvinced by the claims of harm. So we actually
> >found surprisingly widespread agreement that most closed generics won't
> >serve the public good, the disagreement was over whether the potential
> >harm of closed generics was sufficient for ICANN to override historical
> >policy consistency and change process mid-stream.
> >
> >At the same time, many in At-Large who believed on principle that closed
> >generics are harmful (ie, Kathy's position) also came to understand that
> >the position was also not quite so absolute, that there are potential
> >implementations of closed generics that could benefit the public. Consider
> >that a number of new gTLD applicants -- notably those most under fire for
> >closed generics such as Google and Amazon -- don't necessarily make money
> >by selling domains -- they bring the potential for new business models.
> >What if Google wants to disrupt the domain industry the way it has already
> >disrupted the email, office software and GPS industries -- by giving away
> >domains but keeping control over the structure? Google already runs a free
> >DNS service, and operates both Google+ and <http://blogger.com>
> blogger.com
> >under this model.
> >What if Amazon were to offer free .book domains to any bookstore and
> >publisher, but wanted to reserve the right to create its own policy to
> >kick out any subdomain operator that violated a code of conduct? It might
> >not be everyone's choice,  but it's a legitimate option that could offer
> >the public benefit. By many people's interpretation of the AG such schemes
> >could only be done under a "closed" TLD. These are two examples, but they
> >offers a taste of the kind of public-benefit alternative -- of real
> >innovation in domain name distribution -- that can currently only be done
> >as a closed domain.
> >
> >These two factors weighted heavily on the ability of ALAC to create a
> >single statement that acknowledges the diversity while asserting the
> >non-binary complexity of the issue.
> >
> >HTH,
> >
> >- Evan
> >
> >
> >On 5 March 2013 09:46, Kathy Kleiman
> ><<mailto:kathy at kathykleiman.com>kathy at kathykleiman.com> wrote:
> >
> >Why?  It does not change the positions of the letter (favoring nasty
> >closed generics). But it does change the debate to something more
> >respectful and less vitriol.  Not a reason to sign on - but a reason to
> >support the process of disagreement...
> >
> >Kathy
> >
> >
> >Seems a good suggestion to me.
> >
> >will people sign on if it is changed?
> >
> >avri
> >
> >On 4 Mar 2013, at 23:09, Carlos A. Afonso wrote:
> >
> >Hi people, I generally agree. I suggest we do not use derisive expressions
> >like "We find these claims to be hysterical...".
> >
> >frt rgds
> >
> >--c.a.
> >
> >On 03/04/2013 06:22 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote:
> >
> >Dear NCSG members:
> >
> >A group of us, including so far Robin Gross, Avri Doria, Andrew Adams,
> >Nicolas Adam and Brenden Kuerbis, have developed a comment with ICANN on
> >the closed generic issue.
> >You can read our comments at this Google docs link:
> ><
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1tPuEELJ2y6-d0hwF_qPupQb0V5OEFpqkMwcApDRNZf0/edit?usp=sharing
> >
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1tPuEELJ2y6-d0hwF_qPupQb0V5OEFpqkMwcApDRNZf0/edit?usp=sharing
> >We can still add names to the list of supporters, or you could file a
> >quick and easy individual comment with ICANN expressing your support for
> >the statement after it comes out.
> >
> >Milton L. Mueller
> >Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies
> >Internet Governance Project
> ><http://blog.internetgovernance.org>http://blog.internetgovernance.org
> >
> >
> >
> >--
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >--
> >
> >Evan Leibovitch
> >Toronto Canada
> >
> >Em: evan at telly dot org
> >Sk: evanleibovitch
> >Tw: el56
>



-- 
Evan Leibovitch
Toronto Canada

Em: evan at telly dot org
Sk: evanleibovitch
Tw: el56
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20130306/c83a1889/attachment-0001.html>