Andrei, There is a simple para-dyne to answer many questions of why; "Follow the money trail". Lou On 2/7/2013 2:51 AM, Andrei Barburas wrote: > I am wondering why didn't ICANN open up domain registrations for those > generic TLDs so anybody can register their .app/.music/.whatever domain? > > I think a lot of issues would have been avoided and from a revenue > perspective it would have been more profitable on the long term. > > Yet, this is only my personal opinion about this matter... > > > > *Andrei Barburas* > > Community Relations Services Officer > > International Institute for Communication and Development (IICD) > > P.O. Box 11586, 2502 AN The Hague, The Netherlands > > NPOC, ICANN member > > > Mobile: +31 62 928 2879 > > Phone: +31 70 311 7311 > Fax: +31 70 311 7322 > Website: www.iicd.org <http://www.iicd.org/> > > **People ********ICT Development** > > > > On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 7:56 AM, Ron Wickersham <[log in to unmask] > <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> 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 <http://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 <http://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 <http://book.com> before me, then I don't have any > right to use the domain book.com <http://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 <http://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 > >