I disagree about the superiority of .book over .book*s* (and the many other close modification such as .bookish, .oldbook, .newbook, .goodbook, .readbooks, .buybooks, [brand]books, etc., etc.) .libram, ., .tales, .grimoire, .etc . "Google" became a household name, after all. I don't even think that the one that has .book has an advantage over the one that has .thatthingywithpagesnotsomuchfromthepast. In fact, i'd take my chance marketing the latter. Nicolas On 06/09/2012 1:17 PM, David Cake wrote: > I don't think it is a trademark issue purely, nor do I think it is > purely a free expression issue. > But from a public interest point of view, there are some strings that > we should consider carefully. > > Amazon don't have a trademark on book - and we would never let them > have one. So why should we grant them any exclusive rights on .book, > to be used only for their own branded product? And I disagree with > Milton on this - the space is vast, yes, but not all strings are > equal, and there are no synonyms for book of equal quality. > Yes, it isn't a monopoly, but it is a significant competitive > advantage that I don't think we should be selling exclusive rights to. > > Restricted registration (not the same as closed) may well be in the > public interest in some cases. I think the case for restricting .bank > to banks is reasonable, even if we use the word bank for some other > purposes (food bank, seed bank, etc). And restricting .ngo to NGOs etc. > > I'm OK with .brands having closed registration - the logic is > essentially the original, public interest, case for trademarks, that > it protects consumer interests to prevent attempts to claim false > association. > > Sure, there are business agendas at play here. And much as I also am a > member of the Michele Neylon fan club, I acknowledge that he (as a > registrar) has an interest in keeping as many of them as open as > possible. But I also think there are some cases where I'd much rather > see a registrant that intends open registration succeed, and those > where a closed use would imply trying to 'capture' a generic, not > trademarkable, term are particularly problematic (ie .book, .app, > .music, etc). Most of which are contested, with at least some major > bidders planning on open (or restricted but not closed) registration. > > Cheers > > David > > > On 07/09/2012, at 12:40 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > >> Kathy >> I don't agree with Michele's letter and don't see that there are >> actually free expression issues here. Although it is good that you >> circulated this letter, to keep us informed, we have already started >> a dialogue about this issue in connection with the NCUC statement >> regarding human rights issues in new gTLDs. >> As we all know, DNS strings must be exclusively registered to >> someone. Whoever that person/organization is should be able to >> determine the level of "closedness" or "openness" of the >> registrations under it. This is true at the top level, second level, >> third level, whatever. Just as free expression does not mean that the >> IGP website (internetgovernance.org <http://internetgovernance.org>) >> has to allow anyone and everyone to publish their opinion, or >> register a domain at the third level under it, so ownership of a TLD >> does not obligate anyone to open its registrations. If they want to, >> fine. If they don't, it's their right. >> The DNS space is vast. For any given string, there are always more or >> less good substitutes. Giving someone .cloud does not give anyone a >> monopoly over cloud services, clouds in the air, use of the word >> cloud in other contexts, cloud-like brands, cloud images, or…cloudy >> thinking. The idea that these closed business models create a >> monopoly on anything is just wrong. The idea that any generic term >> must be "open" means something very inimical to free expression: it >> means that ICANN would have to dictate the business models and >> procedures of whoever registered a given string. It would also mean >> that ICANN would have to dictate what was a generic word and what was >> not, because it is not always obvious. >> Valuable domains will be created not by the word or string itself, >> but by the investment and value that go into its operation. >> I don’t see how we can say that end users - and noncommercial users >> specifically - are inherently better off if the entity that wins >> .MUSIC allows open registration or creates a controlled name space in >> which the second-level is specific artists, or restricts it to >> internal users, or some other business model. Either way might please >> users, either way might not work out. Take any word in any language >> of your choice: let's say, CHOICE as an example. Can you really >> contend that free expression is better served if .CHOICE _/must/_ >> allow anyone and everyone to register under it? What if it is >> acquired by Planned Parenthood and they want to use it to promote >> their own views, and thus limit how the name space is used? >> You know as well as I do, Kathy, that generic terms have been and >> will continue to be registered at the second level (books.com >> <http://books.com>,cloud.com <http://cloud.com>etc.) In a world where >> .com constituted over half of the domain name space, those generic >> terms were "closed" and probably more economically significant than >> registering a new TLD in a world of 1000 new TLDs will be. >> What is really going on here? I believe that these so-called open v >> closed and "free expression" concerns are just a cloak for certain >> business interests to try to gain a leg up on the competition for >> valuable names. Applicants with business models oriented around >> large numbers of individual registrations (e.g., registrars such as >> Mr. Neylon) are trying to use the regulatory process ex post - >> re-write the rules in mid-stream - to gain an advantage over >> applicants with business models that involve more controlled name >> spaces. I refuse to play along. >> --MM >> *From:*NCSG-Discuss [mailto:[log in to unmask]]*On Behalf >> Of*Kathy Kleiman >> *Sent:*Wednesday, September 05, 2012 3:18 PM >> *To:*[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]> >> *Subject:*[NCSG-Discuss] Closed New gTLDs - "Closed Gardens" >> 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 [log in to unmask] >> <mailto:[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 >> >