Thank you Kathy, Lou On 2/27/2013 8:32 PM, Kathy Kleiman wrote: > Easy Milton, Richemont has applied for "watches" and "jewelry" in > Chinese characters. I oppose those too. > Kathy > > It's true that as a hot issue this would be good for one of our policy > conferences, but the program committee was more focused on issues > specific to China's internet, and the closed-generic debate is more of > an American or western debate that has no special relevance to China. > Maybe in Durban? >> >> I would, however, like to force all opponents of closed to generics >> to be able to conclusively identify a generic term when it appears in >> Chinese characters ;-) >> >> --MM >> >> *From:*NCSG-Discuss [mailto:[log in to unmask]] *On Behalf >> Of *Maria Farrell >> *Sent:* Wednesday, February 27, 2013 3:46 AM >> *To:* [log in to unmask] >> *Subject:* Re: [NCSG-Discuss] Closed Generics [proposals] >> >> Hosting a discussion in Beijing would be a great idea. People are >> eager to debate it so would come to our meeting. >> >> What do we need to do to make it happen..? >> >> Maria >> >> On 27 February 2013 06:14, Dan Krimm <[log in to unmask] >> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote: >> >> As I absorb the two sides of this discussion (seeing merits in both) I'm >> finding myself wanting a more conceptual framework in which to >> evaluate the >> points. >> >> Technically, a domain (TLD) is a domain (2LD) is a domain (3LD). [Point >> Milton] >> >> Administratively, different levels have different agents of control. It >> seems to me that in one sense the *control* is the important thing. Who >> gets to determine who gets to have/control one of these, at whatever >> level? >> [Point Kathy] >> >> If TLDs were ubiquitous (following their being cheap and easy to set >> up) it >> wouldn't matter so much who controlled one string or another because >> there >> would be robust competition and alternatives. Milton's stance would be >> supported by real non-scarcity in TLDs. >> >> In fact, though, even though TLDs are being opened up from near >> stasis, the >> barrier to entry of application fee and the simple fact of finite >> administrative bandwidth in processing applications means that there will >> still be some degree of meaningful scarcity in the system for the >> foreseeable future. >> >> In that case, is there a strategic advantage (economic/political) in >> getting the string before someone else? (Especially if alternatives are >> not easy to come by -- like if .book exists, but not all those others >> like >> .bks, etc.) Seems there could be, and that should be a practical >> consideration even if in principle it ought to be moot. >> >> Or it could *all* be moot if no one really uses domains to discover web >> sites anymore. What is the real, practical economic/political value of >> controlling a TLD? [Point Andrew] >> >> Some points here are contingent upon contingencies of current TLD >> policy -- >> in principle they could be mooted by a more global change in policy, but >> that more global change in policy may not be realistically forthcoming >> given the quango-mire that is ICANN. >> >> So, what I'd love to see is a tracing of a dependency-structure for >> current >> and proposed policies. >> >> I'm nowhere near working this out comprehensively myself, but would >> love to >> see those more experienced with the situation in the long term do so, if >> possible. >> >> I think Pro/Con can lead us toward this (sort of a case-study discovery >> process), but I don't think it will get us all the way there by itself. >> Not to discourage it at all, but maybe let's aim further too, yes? >> >> Dan >> >> PS: Regrettably, I can't be present at any forthcoming in-person >> meetings, >> Beijing or otherwise. But, I can occasionally get to email when I have a >> passing opportunity. Maybe I can offer some questions/comments along the >> way as the discussion develops. >> >> >> -- >> 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 12:41 PM +0100 2/26/13, Avri Doria wrote: >> >Hi, >> > >> >I think this is a great idea, and something that would best be done by >> >someone who was not partisan on the issue. >> > >> >Where you offering? >> > >> >avri >> > >> >On 26 Feb 2013, at 12:20, Clarinettet wrote: >> > >> >> Hi all, >> >> >> >> May I submit one easy suggestion. Obviously, as every option, >> there are >> >>pros and cons. To adopt a common position, we need to balance the pros >> >>and cons. I suggest a worksheet to be created with two columns >> >>representing each side's views and vote from there. That way, everyone >> >>can validity judge and discuss. It's not very easy to follow >> discussions >> >>on series of emails. >> >> >> >> Do you agree? >> >> >> >> Tara Taubman >> > > > -- > >