Thank you Kathy, I'm with you. Lou On 2/10/2013 1:17 PM, Kathy Kleiman 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/ >> >> >