Hi Kathy, Many thanks for this info. I'm not a fan of closed generics either, and had wondered how they came about. Maria On 11 February 2013 07:59, Andrei Barburas <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > Hello Kathy, > > I completely support and agree your point of view. > > One question though; considering that we are quite far in the process > right now, what would be a logical solution to this problem? In one of my > previous emails, I was wondering why ICANN did not allow second level > registrations for those new generic TLDs, pretty much like .com/.net/.org > and so on... > > Besides the money factor that has already been paid by these applicants, > Edward already mentioned the legal factor. > > As we speak, I am getting more and more curious about the outcome of this > situation. > > Until then, I wish all of you an excellent week ahead. > > > > *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 > > > > *People ** **ICT Development* > > > On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 7:17 PM, Kathy Kleiman <[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]>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] <[log in to unmask]>] On Behalf >>> Of William Drake >>> Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2013 1:18 PM >>> To: [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/ >>> >>> >>> >> >> >