Hi,

For some reason I cannot see the fiull version.  But even from what I read here, I certainly do not support it.

I beleive that we always knew that this was a possibility that people would use Generic TLDs for closed usage.

Section 6 of what?  Module 6?  Section 6 of the proposed contract on Fees?  I do not see anything in this that covers the permissibility of not having any external registrations.  In any case, any registration they do have, even for internal purposes, would need to be done by Accredited Registrars and incurr fees.

But in any case I have seen nothing in either the Guidebook or the GNSO recommendations against this possibility.

And as I heard Milton argue somewhere, no one seemed to have a problem with Barnes & Noble using book.com for its own closed purposes.  What is the difference?  Millions and millions of .com versus only Thousands  of gTLDs in this round?

Additionally I think this argument would run into contradiction with the notion that some community TLDs will restrict to whom they sell.  

I suggest we avoid signing this appeal.

avri

PS: but agree completely that Michelle is wonderful.



On 5 Sep 2012, at 15:17, Kathy Kleiman wrote:

> Hi All,
> I would like to share with you a letter being circulated by Michele Neylon, the wonderful Blacknight registrar (and the only registrar in Ireland).  It deals with new gTLDs that are "closed gardens" -- generic words that some companies have applied for as new gTLDs and will keep "closed" -- not open for general second-level domain name registration.  These include some applicants for .BLOG and .CLOUD, among many others.
> 
> It's a powerful letter with strong free speech/freedom of expression arguments. Concerns are shared by registries, registrars and registrants -- and Michele is looking for Signatories. 
> 
> Please take a moment to look at the letter, and let Michele know if you can sign on (name, organization).  Michele is cc'ed on this email, and can be reached at [log in to unmask] 
> 
> ----- 
> Here's the full version with current signatories : https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZUNlookOWyaSW8lXfi_37zVFsVk9xcxncvmE0uwPEFY/editHere are two quotes from the 
> 
> Here are two quotes from the letter: 
> "Based on our collective industry experience, we are of the opinion that the underlying intention of Section 6 was to allow for the operation of closed gTLDs only under very defined circumstances.  
> Specifically, that closed gTLDs should be reserved for only those strings in which the applicant possesses established (i.e., legally recognized) intellectual property rights, basically brand names.  We believe that this interpretation of Section 6 is inherently logical especially in view of the discussions that preceded the opening of gTLDs -- which focused, in very large part, on expanding choices and opportunities as well as promoting innovation, for Internet consumers worldwide."
> 
> "Further,  generic words used in a generic way belong to all people. It is inherently in the public interest to allow access to generic new gTLDs to the whole of the Internet Community, e.g., .BLOG, .MUSIC, .CLOUD. Allowing everyone to register and use second level domain names of these powerful, generic TLDs is exactly what we envisioned the New gTLD Program would do. In contrast, to allow individual Registry Operators to segregate and close-off common words for which they do not possess intellectual property rights in effect allows them to circumvent nation-states’ entrenched legal processes for obtaining legitimate and recognized trademark protections."
> ----
> Best, 
> Kathy 
> Kathy Kleiman
> Internet Counsel, Fletcher, Heald & Hildreth
> Co-Founder, NCUC