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

[Dan Krimm]

Ah, I misread your wording "those most under fire for closed generics such
as Google and Amazon" ... reading too quickly, parsed it wrong.

Pardon,
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 1:44 AM -0500 3/6/13, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
>On 6 March 2013 01:19, Dan Krimm
><<mailto:dan at musicunbound.com>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>http://blogger.com><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:<mailto:kathy at kathykleiman.com>kathy at kathykleiman.com><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><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><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