Dear Alain and All, I have a question. Who would like to work with me on a statement of individuals and organizations within the NCSG? Obviously, we don't have consensus and this will not be a Stakeholder Group statement, but there seem to be a lot of us with similar concerns - across NPOC and NCUC. And further, the issue of generic words used in generic ways is a classic noncommercial issue. It's the balance to trademark law... If you are interested in reviewing a statement or letter, please let me know, and we'll create a subgroup. If anyone would like to work with me on crafting a statement or letter, welcome! Best, Kathy : > Hi, > > I personnally lean heavily in favor of Kathy's position. It seems > quite reasonable to me for IBM, Accenture, Suzuki or Aga Khan > Foundation (AKDN for AK Development Network) and many others to use > their closed gTLD for internal purposes but pure generic words belong > to everybody, period. So even AFAMILYCOMPANY applied for by Johnson > Shareholdings Inc would affect not only the use of "family" by all but > also discriminate against many others such as perhaps the millions of > family-owned companies! > > Bill, I think the "Closed Generics" theme is big enough that it > warrants an NCSG-wide approach in Bali with distinctive NCUC and NPOC > events or sessions on different themes our respective Program Teams > are probably working on right now. > > Alain > > > > On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 9:10 AM, William Drake <[log in to unmask] > <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote: > > Hi > > So there's clearly a diversity of views on this issue among > reasonable people. This was also evident at the IGF meeting in > Baku, where we spent some time on it in the context of a wider > discussion of new gTLDs in the Critical Internet Resources main > session (I co-moderatated, Milton spoke to the issue, as did > Anriette Esterhuysen from NCUC member APC, the Brazilian > ambassador, others... http://webcast.igf2012.com/ondemand/.) > > For this year's IGF in Bali, Alain and I discussed the possibility > of proposing a joint NPOC/NCUC Open Forum session, and in addition > the two constituencies could each organize their own workshops > reflecting their respective priorities and possibilities. In this > context, I'm wondering whether closed generics might not be a good > topic for a NCUC workshop. We could easily get a solid MS panel > together with strongly diverse views that would probably be of > interest to the sort of broader, non-GNSO-insider audiences IGFs > attract. I can already think of a number of developing country > government, business, technical and CS folks who'd likely be eager > to participate as speakers, and it's a nicely bounded problem set > that'd lend itself to focused consideration of commercial and > noncommercial arguments etc. > > After we get past the WSIS+10 and IGF meetings in Paris I may > pitch the Program Team a formal proposal on this. If anyone would > like to conspire, let me know. > > Bill > > On Feb 10, 2013, at 7:17 PM, Kathy Kleiman <[log in to unmask] > <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote: > >> Hi Edward and All, >> I've been meaning to write for some time about Closed Generics. >> Since 1996, I've been fighting the abuse of generic words. The >> first huge domain name dispute battles took place over generic >> words - that trademark owners felt they could use their >> trademarks (which is, of course, a limited right to use a term >> for a specific category of goods and services) to stop ordinary >> people, organizations and entrepreneurs from using ordinary words >> in ordinary ways. We led a huge fight with Network Solutions, and >> then at the dawn of ICANN, to draft Domain Name Dispute Rules >> that protected generic words used in generic ways as part of the >> public domain -- as belonging to us all! >> >> So when I see so many applicants for "Closed Generic" New gTLDs >> -- using a generic word in a generic way and completely >> monopolizing it by *not* allowing your competitors to use it too, >> I am shocked: .APP, .BOOK, .CLOUD, .DRIVE, .MAP, .MOVIE, .NEWS, >> .SEARCH, .SHOP. .STORE, .BLOG, .ANTIVIRUS, .INSURANCE, .HAIR, >> .MAKEUP, .BABY -- These are generic words being used in generic >> ways (according to their applications) for the sole purpose of >> monopolizing the common term of an industry or business -- and >> keeping its competitors out. >> >> There is no way that L'Oréal could get trademarks on .SKIN, >> .SALON, .MAKEUP and .HAIR, as these words are part of the public >> domain name and available to All their competitors to use -- >> their trademarks are on MAYBELLINE, REDKIN, L'Oréal, and the >> share the generics as common descriptive terms. So it is against >> every public interest bone in my body to allow generic words used >> in generic ways to be monopolized by only one business or >> industry player. >> >> But is it against the rules? I went back to my work as Director >> of Policy for .ORG, as I was with .ORG through the end of the >> Applicant Guidebook work. I served on the Vertical Integration >> Working Group in a very active way, as well as the Registries >> group that reviewed every line of the "Base Registry Agreement" >> (the model contract for all new gTLDs). We had agreed that, in >> general, the base model of a Registry is "open" -- that >> Registries must work with ICANN-Accredited Registrars worldwide. >> Why? To reach Registrants worldwide -- to offer them domain >> names in their own languages, currencies and customs. /(For >> example, NII Quaynor, a founder of NCUC and early Board member, >> is now one of the few Registrars in Africa, and equal access of >> his Registrants to domain names, on a nondiscriminatory basis, >> has always been important to our system). / >> >> So no, I found that we had NOT agreed to Closed Generics. In >> fact, the base model of the New gTLD Registries was meant to be >> "open" -- and ICANN incorporated this "Open gTLD" model into its >> Base Registry Agreement (in the Applicant Guidebook). Section >> 2.9a and the Registry Code of Conduct. No Registry may favor a >> particular Registrar -- but provide Equal Access to its Registry >> Services and Data. Why? To be fair to Registrants! It's nowhere >> written that Verisign can't limit .COM domain names only to the >> NY Stock Exchange companies, or that .ORG can't limit .ORG >> registrations to only US organizations, but everyone knows if >> they did that, they would lose their accreditation with ICANN. >> /Non-discrimination and Equal Access are part of our domain name >> DNA. /(See "Base Agreement & Specifications", Specification 9, >> http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb). >> >> The initial Registry Code of Conduct had _no_ exceptions. Then >> the Commercial Guys got upset-- why should a Dot-Brand TLD, e.g. >> .IBM, have to go through registrars to register domain names, and >> why should they have to register names to the public anyway? >> (Arguments also made in the Vertical Integration WG.) Special >> privileges for very limited use New TLDs - let IBM keep its >> domain names for its employees, franchisees, etc. And frankly, >> most of us agreed. So the next version of the Registry Code of >> Conduct came out with a narrow exception: >> >> ==> "6. Registry Operator may request an exemption to this >> Code of Conduct, and such exemption may be granted by ICANN >> in ICANN’s reasonable discretion, if Registry Operator >> demonstrates to ICANN’s reasonable satisfaction that (i) all >> domain name registrations in the TLD are registered to, and >> maintained by, Registry Operator for its own exclusive use, (ii) >> Registry Operator does not sell, distribute or transfer control >> or use of any registrations in the TLD to any third party that is >> not an Affiliate of Registry Operator, and (iii) application of >> this Code of Conduct to the TLD is not necessary to protect the >> public interest." >> >> It had a comment that made its intent very clear: >> ===> [*Note: This draft Section 6 of the Registry Operator >> Code of Conduct has been added in response to comments received >> that suggested that the Code was not necessary for registries in >> which a single registrant uses the TLD solely for its own >> operations and does not sell registrations to third parties (e.g. >> a dot-BRAND)] >> (http://archive.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/draft-agreement-specs-redline-15apr11-en.pdf) >> >> And that's where we left it. Of course, some people in the >> Vertical Integration WG wanted much more, and some of them are on >> this list. And some wanted much less- that all gTLDs be open. The >> compromise was to allow dot-BRANDs to be closed, but certainly >> not any string any applicant wanted for any reasons. Generic >> words used in generic ways belong to everyone in the industry or >> business :-). >> >> I look forward to our discussion, and happy to provide links >> letters and public comment forums. >> >> All the best, >> Kathy >> p.s. Quick additional note on "restricted TLDs." In case anyone >> is wondering, "restricted TLDs" are generally OK among those >> deeply concerned about Closed Generics because restricting .BANK >> to real banks or .LAWYER to lawyers with actual credentials seems >> consistent with non-discrimination and equal access provisions -- >> provided the criteria and fairly and globally applied... >> >> >> Edward Morris wrote: >> >> >> : >>> Kathy, >>> >>> I am sympathetic to your position. My concern is that any change >>> now to the program will embroil ICANN in mass litigation that >>> will paralyze the organization for a considerable period going >>> forward. We briefly spoke in Los Angeles about some recent legal >>> hires by Amazon: some pretty impressive hires. Can you convince >>> me that my concerns are invalid? Might not a better approach at >>> this point be to pressure the applicants themselves to open up >>> the generic domains, to make it socially unacceptable for large >>> companies to operate closed Tlds? >>> >>> Ed >>> >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 8:26 PM, Kathy Kleiman >>> <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote: >>> >>> Quote from Jeff Neuman (VP Neustar) in Amsterdam last week: >>> /*Nearly all of those applying for Closed gTLDs would fail >>> to qualify based on his reading of the Code of Conduct. *//* >>> */ >>> Article show concern around the world for TLDs which are >>> generic strings/words of an entire industry or business >>> (DOCS, BOOK, SEARCH, ANTIVIRUS, WATCHES) being dominated and >>> controlled by a single industry/business (and only one of >>> many competitors). that's being a registry to monoplize a >>> word, not to offer registry services. >>> >>> - The Hindu: Beauty lies in the ‘domain’ of the highest >>> bidder (Op-ed piece by Parminder Jeet Singh, Executive >>> Director, IT for Change, in special consultative status with >>> the United Nations Economic and Social Council (IGF >>> attendee)), 12/24/2012, >>> http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/beauty-lies-in-the-domain-of-the-highest-bidder/article3929612.ece >>> >>> >>> - Forbes: The Battle For The Cloud: Amazon Proposes >>> 'Closed' Top-Level .CLOUD Domain, 11/6/2012, >>> http://www.forbes.com/sites/reuvencohen/2012/11/06/the-battle-for-the-cloud-amazon-proposes-closed-top-level-cloud-domain/?partner=yahootix >>> >>> >>> - Techworld: Problems arise where one entity is seeking >>> exclusive use of strings with broad applicability, >>> 11/21/2012, >>> http://news.techworld.com/networking/3412616/icann-issues-early-warnings-over-controversial-top-level-domains/ >>> >>> I am deeply, deeply concerned! >>> Best, >>> Kathy >>> >>> >>>> A quote from Karen Lentz (ICANN legal staff): "Under the current rules, there's nothing that would prevent the use of closed generics, which is focused on the issue of who can register a name." >>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: NCSG-Discuss [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf >>>>> Of William Drake >>>>> Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2013 1:18 PM >>>>> To:[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]> >>>>> Subject: [NCSG-Discuss] new-gtld-committee-not-sure-how-to-handle- >>>>> closed-generic-applications >>>>> >>>>> surprise! >>>>> >>>>> http://www.thedomains.com/2013/02/05/icann-new-gtld-committee-not- >>>>> sure-how-to-handle-closed-generic-applications/ >>> >>> >> > > > > > -- > Alain Berranger, B.Eng, MBA > Member, Board of Directors, CECI, http://www.ceci.ca > <http://www.ceci.ca/en/about-ceci/team/board-of-directors/> > Executive-in-residence, Schulich School of Business, > www.schulich.yorku.ca <http://www.schulich.yorku.ca> > Treasurer, Global Knowledge Partnership Foundation, > www.gkpfoundation.org <http://www.gkpfoundation.org> > NA representative, Chasquinet Foundation, www.chasquinet.org > <http://www.chasquinet.org> > Chair, NPOC, NCSG, ICANN, http://npoc.org/ > O:+1 514 484 7824; M:+1 514 704 7824 > Skype: alain.berranger > > > AVIS DE CONFIDENTIALITÉ > Ce courriel est confidentiel et est à l’usage exclusif du destinataire > ci-dessus. Toute personne qui lit le présent message sans en être le > destinataire, ou l’employé(e) ou la personne responsable de le > remettre au destinataire, est par les présentes avisée qu’il lui est > strictement interdit de le diffuser, de le distribuer, de le modifier > ou de le reproduire, en tout ou en partie . Si le destinataire ne peut > être joint ou si ce document vous a été communiqué par erreur, > veuillez nous en informer sur le champ et détruire ce courriel et > toute copie de celui-ci. Merci de votre coopération. > > CONFIDENTIALITY MESSAGE > This e-mail message is confidential and is intended for the exclusive > use of the addressee. Please note that, should this message be read by > anyone other than the addressee, his or her employee or the person > responsible for forwarding it to the addressee, it is strictly > prohibited to disclose, distribute, modify or reproduce the contents > of this message, in whole or in part. If the addressee cannot be > reached or if you have received this e-mail in error, please notify us > immediately and delete this e-mail and destroy all copies. Thank you > for your cooperation. > --