Exactly Alex, Lou On 2/24/2013 12:12 PM, Alex Gakuru wrote: > But Avri, > > Let's take honey, for example. Someone registers the word to the > exclusion of everyone else in the domain name space. Surely honey is > harvested at many places around the world, therefore *all* > somewhere.honey equally deserve registration with whomever rushed to > grab the word. Else would mean advocating for English to be now > considered as a proprietary language. > > Regards, > > Alex > > On Sun, Feb 24, 2013 at 7:00 PM, Avri Doria <[log in to unmask] > <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote: > > Hi, > > I disagree. I find no problems with closed generics, and having > been part of the discussions that developed the policies know that > they were just assumed to be a fact of life. Not something to be > concerned about. > > I see no clear words that say a Registry can't use all of the > names for its own purposes. not sure what uyou mean by 'own'. > > Yes, they need to treat all registrars equally, but that can be > done, as long as other registrars are willing to provide > registrations for cost without any outside marketing and for the > sales or without the opportunity of selling of extra services. > The rules say noting about having to give registrars a deal they > like, only that all registrars must get the same deal. > > I tend to think that we are not going to achieve a NCSG wide > position on this one. > > avri > > On 24 Feb 2013, at 16:40, Kathy Kleiman wrote: > > > Tx so much Alain, for your response, and your examples. It all > seems to make sense when we see the examples... > > > > To those who asked about changing the rules, for many of us, > barring Closed Generics *is not changing the rules,* but enforcing > them. > > > > I do too much work in the regulatory field to believe in > regulation by surprise. when I first saw the dozens and dozens of > Closed Generics (it's really appalling), I went back to the words > of the Applicant Guidebook, which includes the model Registry > Agreement (the agreement all new gTLD registries will be asked to > sign, and with limited exceptions, expected to sign). > > > > The words clearly, clearly say that a Registry cannot own all of > its domain names -- basically, a registry must operate as a > traditional registry -- unless it asks for an exception. That's > embedded in 2.9 of the Registry Agreement, and its Registry Code > of Conduct (called Specification (or exhibit) 9). > > > > 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] > <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 > >> 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. > >> > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > >