Dear Alain and All,
I have a question. Who would like to work with me on a statement of
individuals and organizations within the NCSG? Obviously, we don't have
consensus and this will not be a Stakeholder Group statement, but there
seem to be a lot of us with similar concerns - across NPOC and NCUC. And
further, the issue of generic words used in generic ways is a classic
noncommercial issue. It's the balance to trademark law...
If you are interested in reviewing a statement or letter, please let me
know, and we'll create a subgroup.
If anyone would like to work with me on crafting a statement or letter,
welcome!
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]
> <mailto:[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]
> <mailto:[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] <mailto:[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] <mailto:[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
> <http://www.ceci.ca/en/about-ceci/team/board-of-directors/>
> Executive-in-residence, Schulich School of Business,
> www.schulich.yorku.ca <http://www.schulich.yorku.ca>
> Treasurer, Global Knowledge Partnership Foundation,
> www.gkpfoundation.org <http://www.gkpfoundation.org>
> NA representative, Chasquinet Foundation, www.chasquinet.org
> <http://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.
>
--
|
