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.

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:[log in to unmask]>[log in to unmask]> 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