On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 10:36 PM, Carl Smith <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > Milton, > > I have a problem with generic words being owned I don't see these words being "owned" at all. Running a registry is not the same as owning a word. Besides, who is to say what is a generic word or not? In short, I agree with MM here. -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel by some individual or etc.. > For example, hypothetically, suppose that in the phone book, the first John > Smith was the only one in the world who could be allowed to use John Smith > in any phone book and by extension in any other listing of phone numbers. > How many John Smiths would be prohibited from having the equal right to list > their own given name in possibly any way? If we are still intent on using > generics, we would need some kind of delimiter to differentiate between > others who should have the right to use the common language they know and > understand. In this case, only one specific delimiter would need be unique. > That delimiter should be the only thing owned to identify the specific > individual. With the postal system, for instance, the address. Some people > own an address. Often the address may be rented or least. But the complete > address is the only unique entity involved and not each of the generic words > of which it is composed. The ownership of words will certainly lead to > commercial oppression of individuals all over the world. Let us look to a > wider picture of circumstances of what we do lest we find a huge problem in > the future. Commercial interest's greatest wet dream is to have a monopoly. > Is that what we are willing to accept? > > Lou > > > > On 2/6/2013 3:15 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > > > I stand ready to be educated by those with different views. > > > > OK. Here is a different view. > > > > It is not a free speech issue at all. It is a vertical integration or > business model issue, exclusively. Some registries want to create a > specific image or environment inside a particular TLD. Those registries are > not trying to sell domain name registrations per se, they are selling or > doing other things with the domain, perhaps even giving domains away to > promote a service. They might also use their authority to control > registrations to prevent speculators from grabbing all the "good" names, or > to impose a taxonomy on the second level, or to prevent undesirable types > from squatting or tarnishing the overall image of the domain. > > > > Other registries want to maximize the number of registrations under a TLD. > In that case, it makes sense to be "open". In other words, if you are a > registrar and want to sell hundreds of thousands or millions of domains to > whoever will buy them for whatever reason, then you want "open" or FCFS > TLDs. > > > > Not surprisingly, the real push for "open" and against "closed" TLDs is > coming from traditional registrars who want all the potentially popular > domains to be available for them to exploit as registrars. The free speech > and competition policy claims are pure diversions. > > > > Take .BOOK for example. If someone wants to open that up for anyone on a > first-come, first-served basis, there are advantages and disadvantages. > Sure, I could register networksandstates.book in an open domain, if I wanted > to. But someone else might register it before me, or someone might register > nonfiction.books (so there's that "terrible" appropriation of a generic term > again). Wrose, 600 different link farms might appropriate other generic > terms (sex.books, good.books) and just pile pay per click ads onto them, so > that anyone using the domain would never know whether a specific domain was > useful or just a commercial diversion. > > > > I don't think it's ICANN's job to say that either one of these business > models is the right one. I think there is an important place for both > models, and the proper decision maker to decide which one to use is the > person who risked about $1 million to get the domain and operate it. > > > > The competition policy claims are especially laughable, because unless you > confuse the market for books with the market for names under .book, it is > obvious that possession of the latter does not do anything to give you > monopoly control of the former. > > > > Likewise, I don't see the freedom issue here. In fact, freedom of expression > and property rights are mutually reinforcing in this case. If I register a > domain like .IGP and want to use it to push a particular topic or point of > view, it's my right NOT to allow, say, advocates of Scientology to register > domains under IGP. If I have to lend my domain to promotion of causes and > ideas I don't support, my freedom of association and expression rights are > being restricted. > > > > Edward, you have a domain under USC.EDU. USC is not obliged, on free speech > grounds, to allow me to register a name under their domain. This is not a > restriction of my right of free speech so much as it is an extension of > USC's right of free association and free speech. There are plenty of domains > to accommodate diverse views. > > > > Generic words in the SLD space have been registered - and restricted to what > their owners want them to do - for more than a decade. I don't see how TLD > vs SLD changes the issue in any relevant way. Would you contend that your > right to freedom of expression is restricted because you can't register > <foo>.book.com? If not, why is it a restriction to not be allowed to > register <foo>.book? I think we would both probably agree that if someone > else registers book.com before me, then I don't have any right to use the > domain book.com. Why is it any different for .book? > > > > Remember, new domains are NOT .com; i.e., they have no monopoly power or > lock in power on existing registrants. No one has to use them or register in > them. > > > >