Thanks ron, I too have these same type of concerns. Lou On 2/7/2013 1:56 AM, Ron Wickersham wrote: > A possible confusion exists for individual/consumer users of the Internet > with regard to second-level host names in closed new gtld's. See below: > > On Wed, 6 Feb 2013, 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. > > But in .com, there is a protection for trademarks at the second level, > and a mechanism to contest the _use_ of names at the second level based > on confusing a consumer. > > For instance, if I see the name of a bank, followed by .com, I don't > expect that wellsfargo.com will belong to a competitive bank. And if > .bank were to be an open tld, then Wells Fargo Bank would be able to > register wellsfargo.bank, and if someone else registered wellsfargo.bank > the real wellsfargo.bank would be able to contest the registration. > > Yet if, for instance, citi bank were to apply for and be granted > .bank, then a totally hands-off approach would permit them to provide > a web page > at wellsfargo.bank. They are extremely unlikely to use that page to > ask for Wells Fargo Bank customers to log in with their password, but > they could create a page that offers Wells Fargo Bank customers a special > offer to switch banks, and Wells Fargo would not have any mechanism to > contest the 2nd level use of wellsfargo.bank in this manner thru ICANN. > > Of course, web traffic is only a part of Internet capability. And I grant > that a solution to the above dilemma may not exist. I am interested in > hearing more discussion on second level in closed generic tld's. > > -ron wickersham > >