But Avri,
Let's take honey, for example. Someone registers the word to the exclusion
of everyone else in the domain name space. Surely honey is harvested at
many places around the world, therefore *all* somewhere.honey equally
deserve registration with whomever rushed to grab the word. Else would mean
advocating for English to be now considered as a proprietary language.
Regards,
Alex
On Sun, Feb 24, 2013 at 7:00 PM, Avri Doria <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I disagree. I find no problems with closed generics, and having been part
> of the discussions that developed the policies know that they were just
> assumed to be a fact of life. Not something to be concerned about.
>
> I see no clear words that say a Registry can't use all of the names for
> its own purposes. not sure what uyou mean by 'own'.
>
> Yes, they need to treat all registrars equally, but that can be done, as
> long as other registrars are willing to provide registrations for cost
> without any outside marketing and for the sales or without the opportunity
> of selling of extra services. The rules say noting about having to give
> registrars a deal they like, only that all registrars must get the same
> deal.
>
> I tend to think that we are not going to achieve a NCSG wide position on
> this one.
>
> avri
>
> On 24 Feb 2013, at 16:40, Kathy Kleiman wrote:
>
> > Tx so much Alain, for your response, and your examples. It all seems to
> make sense when we see the examples...
> >
> > To those who asked about changing the rules, for many of us, barring
> Closed Generics *is not changing the rules,* but enforcing them.
> >
> > I do too much work in the regulatory field to believe in regulation by
> surprise. when I first saw the dozens and dozens of Closed Generics (it's
> really appalling), I went back to the words of the Applicant Guidebook,
> which includes the model Registry Agreement (the agreement all new gTLD
> registries will be asked to sign, and with limited exceptions, expected to
> sign).
> >
> > The words clearly, clearly say that a Registry cannot own all of its
> domain names -- basically, a registry must operate as a traditional
> registry -- unless it asks for an exception. That's embedded in 2.9 of the
> Registry Agreement, and its Registry Code of Conduct (called Specification
> (or exhibit) 9).
> >
> > Best,
> > Kathy
> > :
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> I personnally lean heavily in favor of Kathy's position. It seems quite
> reasonable to me for IBM, Accenture, Suzuki or Aga Khan Foundation (AKDN
> for AK Development Network) and many others to use their closed gTLD for
> internal purposes but pure generic words belong to everybody, period. So
> even AFAMILYCOMPANY applied for by Johnson Shareholdings Inc would affect
> not only the use of "family" by all but also discriminate against many
> others such as perhaps the millions of family-owned companies!
> >>
> >> Bill, I think the "Closed Generics" theme is big enough that it
> warrants an NCSG-wide approach in Bali with distinctive NCUC and NPOC
> events or sessions on different themes our respective Program Teams are
> probably working on right now.
> >>
> >> Alain
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 9:10 AM, William Drake <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
> >> Hi
> >>
> >> So there's clearly a diversity of views on this issue among reasonable
> people. This was also evident at the IGF meeting in Baku, where we spent
> some time on it in the context of a wider discussion of new gTLDs in the
> Critical Internet Resources main session (I co-moderatated, Milton spoke to
> the issue, as did Anriette Esterhuysen from NCUC member APC, the Brazilian
> ambassador, others... http://webcast.igf2012.com/ondemand/.)
> >>
> >> For this year's IGF in Bali, Alain and I discussed the possibility of
> proposing a joint NPOC/NCUC Open Forum session, and in addition the two
> constituencies could each organize their own workshops reflecting their
> respective priorities and possibilities. In this context, I'm wondering
> whether closed generics might not be a good topic for a NCUC workshop. We
> could easily get a solid MS panel together with strongly diverse views that
> would probably be of interest to the sort of broader, non-GNSO-insider
> audiences IGFs attract. I can already think of a number of developing
> country government, business, technical and CS folks who'd likely be eager
> to participate as speakers, and it's a nicely bounded problem set that'd
> lend itself to focused consideration of commercial and noncommercial
> arguments etc.
> >>
> >> After we get past the WSIS+10 and IGF meetings in Paris I may pitch the
> Program Team a formal proposal on this. If anyone would like to conspire,
> let me know.
> >>
> >> Bill
> >>
> >> On Feb 10, 2013, at 7:17 PM, Kathy Kleiman <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Hi Edward and All,
> >>> I've been meaning to write for some time about Closed Generics. Since
> 1996, I've been fighting the abuse of generic words. The first huge domain
> name dispute battles took place over generic words - that trademark owners
> felt they could use their trademarks (which is, of course, a limited right
> to use a term for a specific category of goods and services) to stop
> ordinary people, organizations and entrepreneurs from using ordinary words
> in ordinary ways. We led a huge fight with Network Solutions, and then at
> the dawn of ICANN, to draft Domain Name Dispute Rules that protected
> generic words used in generic ways as part of the public domain -- as
> belonging to us all!
> >>>
> >>> So when I see so many applicants for "Closed Generic" New gTLDs --
> using a generic word in a generic way and completely monopolizing it by
> *not* allowing your competitors to use it too, I am shocked: .APP, .BOOK,
> .CLOUD, .DRIVE, .MAP, .MOVIE, .NEWS, .SEARCH, .SHOP. .STORE, .BLOG,
> .ANTIVIRUS, .INSURANCE, .HAIR, .MAKEUP, .BABY -- These are generic words
> being used in generic ways (according to their applications) for the sole
> purpose of monopolizing the common term of an industry or business -- and
> keeping its competitors out.
> >>>
> >>> There is no way that L'Oréal could get trademarks on .SKIN, .SALON,
> .MAKEUP and .HAIR, as these words are part of the public domain name and
> available to All their competitors to use -- their trademarks are on
> MAYBELLINE, REDKIN, L'Oréal, and the share the generics as common
> descriptive terms. So it is against every public interest bone in my body
> to allow generic words used in generic ways to be monopolized by only one
> business or industry player.
> >>>
> >>> But is it against the rules? I went back to my work as Director of
> Policy for .ORG, as I was with .ORG through the end of the Applicant
> Guidebook work. I served on the Vertical Integration Working Group in a
> very active way, as well as the Registries group that reviewed every line
> of the "Base Registry Agreement" (the model contract for all new gTLDs).
> We had agreed that, in general, the base model of a Registry is "open" --
> that Registries must work with ICANN-Accredited Registrars worldwide. Why?
> To reach Registrants worldwide -- to offer them domain names in their own
> languages, currencies and customs. (For example, NII Quaynor, a founder
> of NCUC and early Board member, is now one of the few Registrars in Africa,
> and equal access of his Registrants to domain names, on a nondiscriminatory
> basis, has always been important to our system).
> >>>
> >>> So no, I found that we had NOT agreed to Closed Generics. In fact, the
> base model of the New gTLD Registries was meant to be "open" -- and ICANN
> incorporated this "Open gTLD" model into its Base Registry Agreement (in
> the Applicant Guidebook). Section 2.9a and the Registry Code of Conduct.
> No Registry may favor a particular Registrar -- but provide Equal Access to
> its Registry Services and Data. Why? To be fair to Registrants! It's
> nowhere written that Verisign can't limit .COM domain names only to the NY
> Stock Exchange companies, or that .ORG can't limit .ORG registrations to
> only US organizations, but everyone knows if they did that, they would lose
> their accreditation with ICANN. Non-discrimination and Equal Access are
> part of our domain name DNA. (See "Base Agreement & Specifications",
> Specification 9, http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb).
> >>>
> >>> The initial Registry Code of Conduct had no exceptions. Then the
> Commercial Guys got upset-- why should a Dot-Brand TLD, e.g. .IBM, have to
> go through registrars to register domain names, and why should they have to
> register names to the public anyway? (Arguments also made in the Vertical
> Integration WG.) Special privileges for very limited use New TLDs - let
> IBM keep its domain names for its employees, franchisees, etc. And
> frankly, most of us agreed. So the next version of the Registry Code of
> Conduct came out with a narrow exception:
> >>>
> >>> ==> "6. Registry Operator may request an exemption to this Code of
> Conduct, and such exemption may be granted by ICANN in ICANN’s
> reasonable discretion, if Registry Operator demonstrates to ICANN’s
> reasonable satisfaction that (i) all domain name registrations in the TLD
> are registered to, and maintained by, Registry Operator for its own
> exclusive use, (ii) Registry Operator does not sell, distribute or transfer
> control or use of any registrations in the TLD to any third party that is
> not an Affiliate of Registry Operator, and (iii) application of this Code
> of Conduct to the TLD is not necessary to protect the public interest."
> >>>
> >>> It had a comment that made its intent very clear:
> >>> ===> [*Note: This draft Section 6 of the Registry Operator Code of
> Conduct has been added in response to comments received that suggested that
> the Code was not necessary for registries in which a single registrant uses
> the TLD solely for its own operations and does not sell registrations to
> third parties (e.g. a dot-BRAND)] (
> http://archive.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/draft-agreement-specs-redline-15apr11-en.pdf
> )
> >>>
> >>> And that's where we left it. Of course, some people in the Vertical
> Integration WG wanted much more, and some of them are on this list. And
> some wanted much less- that all gTLDs be open. The compromise was to allow
> dot-BRANDs to be closed, but certainly not any string any applicant wanted
> for any reasons. Generic words used in generic ways belong to everyone in
> the industry or business :-).
> >>>
> >>> I look forward to our discussion, and happy to provide links letters
> and public comment forums.
> >>>
> >>> All the best,
> >>> Kathy
> >>> p.s. Quick additional note on "restricted TLDs." In case anyone is
> wondering, "restricted TLDs" are generally OK among those deeply concerned
> about Closed Generics because restricting .BANK to real banks or .LAWYER to
> lawyers with actual credentials seems consistent with non-discrimination
> and equal access provisions -- provided the criteria and fairly and
> globally applied...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Edward Morris wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> :
> >>>> Kathy,
> >>>>
> >>>> I am sympathetic to your position. My concern is that any change now
> to the program will embroil ICANN in mass litigation that will paralyze the
> organization for a considerable period going forward. We briefly spoke in
> Los Angeles about some recent legal hires by Amazon: some pretty impressive
> hires. Can you convince me that my concerns are invalid? Might not a better
> approach at this point be to pressure the applicants themselves to open up
> the generic domains, to make it socially unacceptable for large companies
> to operate closed Tlds?
> >>>>
> >>>> Ed
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 8:26 PM, Kathy Kleiman <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
> >>>> Quote from Jeff Neuman (VP Neustar) in Amsterdam last week:
> >>>> Nearly all of those applying for Closed gTLDs would fail to qualify
> based on his reading of the Code of Conduct.
> >>>>
> >>>> Article show concern around the world for TLDs which are generic
> strings/words of an entire industry or business (DOCS, BOOK, SEARCH,
> ANTIVIRUS, WATCHES) being dominated and controlled by a single
> industry/business (and only one of many competitors). that's being a
> registry to monoplize a word, not to offer registry services.
> >>>>
> >>>> - The Hindu: Beauty lies in the ‘domain’ of the highest bidder
> (Op-ed piece by Parminder Jeet Singh, Executive Director, IT for Change, in
> special consultative status with the United Nations Economic and Social
> Council (IGF attendee)), 12/24/2012,
> http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/beauty-lies-in-the-domain-of-the-highest-bidder/article3929612.ece
> >>>>
> >>>> - Forbes: The Battle For The Cloud: Amazon Proposes 'Closed'
> Top-Level .CLOUD Domain, 11/6/2012,
> http://www.forbes.com/sites/reuvencohen/2012/11/06/the-battle-for-the-cloud-amazon-proposes-closed-top-level-cloud-domain/?partner=yahootix
> >>>>
> >>>> - Techworld: Problems arise where one entity is seeking exclusive
> use of strings with broad applicability, 11/21/2012,
> http://news.techworld.com/networking/3412616/icann-issues-early-warnings-over-controversial-top-level-domains/
> >>>>
> >>>> I am deeply, deeply concerned!
> >>>> Best,
> >>>> Kathy
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> A quote from Karen Lentz (ICANN legal staff): "Under the current
> rules, there's nothing that would prevent the use of closed generics, which
> is focused on the issue of who can register a name."
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>>>> From: NCSG-Discuss [
> >>>>>> mailto:[log in to unmask]
> >>>>>> ] On Behalf
> >>>>>> Of William Drake
> >>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2013 1:18 PM
> >>>>>> To:
> >>>>>> [log in to unmask]
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Subject: [NCSG-Discuss] new-gtld-committee-not-sure-how-to-handle-
> >>>>>> closed-generic-applications
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> surprise!
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> http://www.thedomains.com/2013/02/05/icann-new-gtld-committee-not
> >>>>>> -
> >>>>>> sure-how-to-handle-closed-generic-applications/
> >>>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Alain Berranger, B.Eng, MBA
> >> Member, Board of Directors, CECI, http://www.ceci.ca
> >> Executive-in-residence, Schulich School of Business,
> www.schulich.yorku.ca
> >> Treasurer, Global Knowledge Partnership Foundation,
> www.gkpfoundation.org
> >> NA representative, Chasquinet Foundation, www.chasquinet.org
> >> Chair, NPOC, NCSG, ICANN, http://npoc.org/
> >> O:+1 514 484 7824; M:+1 514 704 7824
> >> Skype: alain.berranger
> >>
> >>
> >> AVIS DE CONFIDENTIALITÉ
> >> Ce courriel est confidentiel et est à l’usage exclusif du destinataire
> ci-dessus. Toute personne qui lit le présent message sans en être le
> destinataire, ou l’employé(e) ou la personne responsable de le remettre au
> destinataire, est par les présentes avisée qu’il lui est strictement
> interdit de le diffuser, de le distribuer, de le modifier ou de le
> reproduire, en tout ou en partie . Si le destinataire ne peut être joint ou
> si ce document vous a été communiqué par erreur, veuillez nous en informer
> sur le champ et détruire ce courriel et toute copie de celui-ci. Merci de
> votre coopération.
> >>
> >> CONFIDENTIALITY MESSAGE
> >> This e-mail message is confidential and is intended for the exclusive
> use of the addressee. Please note that, should this message be read by
> anyone other than the addressee, his or her employee or the person
> responsible for forwarding it to the addressee, it is strictly prohibited
> to disclose, distribute, modify or reproduce the contents of this message,
> in whole or in part. If the addressee cannot be reached or if you have
> received this e-mail in error, please notify us immediately and delete this
> e-mail and destroy all copies. Thank you for your cooperation.
> >>
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> >
> >
>
|
