Thanks ron,

I too have these same type of concerns.

Lou


On 2/7/2013 1:56 AM, Ron Wickersham wrote:
> A possible confusion exists for individual/consumer users of the Internet
> with regard to second-level host names in closed new gtld's.   See below:
>
> On Wed, 6 Feb 2013, Milton L Mueller wrote:
>
>>
>> I stand ready to be educated by those with different views.
>>
>> OK. Here is a different view.
>>
>> It is not a free speech issue at all. It is a vertical integration or 
>> business  model issue, exclusively. Some registries want to create a 
>> specific image or environment inside a particular TLD. Those 
>> registries are not trying to sell domain name registrations per se, 
>> they are selling or doing other things with the domain, perhaps even 
>> giving domains away to promote a service. They might also use their 
>> authority to control registrations to prevent speculators from 
>> grabbing all the "good" names, or to impose a taxonomy on the second 
>> level, or to prevent undesirable types from squatting or tarnishing 
>> the overall image of the domain.
>>
>> Other registries want to maximize the number of registrations under a 
>> TLD. In that case, it makes sense to be "open". In other words, if 
>> you are a registrar and want to sell hundreds of thousands or 
>> millions of domains to whoever will buy them for whatever reason, 
>> then you want "open" or FCFS TLDs.
>>
>> Not surprisingly, the real push for "open" and against "closed" TLDs 
>> is coming from traditional registrars who want all the potentially 
>> popular domains to be available for them to exploit as registrars. 
>> The free speech and competition policy claims are pure diversions.
>>
>> Take .BOOK for example. If someone wants to open that up for anyone 
>> on a first-come, first-served basis, there are advantages and 
>> disadvantages. Sure, I could register networksandstates.book in an 
>> open domain, if I wanted to. But someone else might register it 
>> before me, or someone might register nonfiction.books (so there's 
>> that "terrible" appropriation of a generic term again). Wrose, 600 
>> different link farms might appropriate other generic terms 
>> (sex.books, good.books) and just pile pay per click ads onto them, so 
>> that anyone using the domain would never know whether a specific 
>> domain was useful or just a commercial diversion.
>>
>> I don't think it's ICANN's job to say that either one of these 
>> business models is the right one. I think there is an important place 
>> for both models, and the proper decision maker to decide which one to 
>> use is the person who risked about $1 million to get the domain and 
>> operate it.
>>
>> The competition policy claims are especially laughable, because 
>> unless you confuse the market for books with the market for names 
>> under .book, it is obvious that possession of the latter does not do 
>> anything to give you monopoly control of the former.
>>
>> Likewise, I don't see the freedom issue here. In fact, freedom of 
>> expression and property rights are mutually reinforcing in this case. 
>> If I register a domain like .IGP and want to use it to push a 
>> particular topic or point of view, it's my right NOT to allow, say, 
>> advocates of Scientology to register domains under IGP. If I have to 
>> lend my domain to promotion of causes and ideas I don't support, my 
>> freedom of association and expression rights are being restricted.
>>
>> Edward, you have a domain under USC.EDU. USC is not obliged, on free 
>> speech grounds, to allow me to register a name under their domain. 
>> This is not a restriction of my right of free speech so much as it is 
>> an extension of USC's right of free association and free speech. 
>> There are plenty of domains to accommodate diverse views.
>>
>> Generic words in the SLD space have been registered - and restricted 
>> to what their owners want them to do - for more than a decade. I 
>> don't see how TLD vs SLD changes the issue in any relevant way. Would 
>> you contend that your right to freedom of expression is restricted 
>> because you can't register <foo>.book.com? If not, why is it a 
>> restriction to not be allowed to register  <foo>.book? I think we 
>> would both probably agree that if someone else registers book.com 
>> before me, then I don't have any right to use the domain book.com. 
>> Why is it any different for .book?
>>
>> Remember, new domains are NOT .com; i.e., they have no monopoly power 
>> or lock in power on existing registrants. No one has to use them or 
>> register in them.
>
> But in .com, there is a protection for trademarks at the second level,
> and a mechanism to contest the _use_ of names at the second level based
> on confusing a consumer.
>
> For instance, if I see the name of a bank, followed by .com, I don't
> expect that wellsfargo.com will belong to a competitive bank.  And if
> .bank were to be an open tld, then Wells Fargo Bank would be able to
> register wellsfargo.bank, and if someone else registered wellsfargo.bank
> the real wellsfargo.bank would be able to contest the registration.
>
> Yet if, for instance, citi bank were to apply for and be granted 
> .bank, then a totally hands-off approach would permit them to provide 
> a web page
> at wellsfargo.bank.   They are extremely unlikely to use that page to
> ask for Wells Fargo Bank customers to log in with their password, but
> they could create a page that offers Wells Fargo Bank customers a special
> offer to switch banks, and Wells Fargo would not have any mechanism to
> contest the 2nd level use of wellsfargo.bank in this manner thru ICANN.
>
> Of course, web traffic is only a part of Internet capability. And I grant
> that a solution to the above dilemma may not exist.   I am interested in
> hearing more discussion on second level in closed generic tld's.
>
> -ron wickersham
>
>