On 6 March 2013 01:19, Dan Krimm <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > Forgive a tiny tangential nit-pick here, but it may be worth noting that > "Google" originated as a misspelling of the number name "googol" and so I'm > not sure that "Google" should be considered a true generic, even if it > would be operated as closed. > Google has submitted many applications -- including for some very genetic word strings. Conversely, I am not aware of anyone claiming anywhere that .google is a closed generic. - Evan > > More like a brand that uses "Kleen" in its name to elicit the idea of > "clean"... > > (Unless legitimate dictionaries might be including the misspelling as a > legitimate alternate spelling? I'm not aware that that is the case...) > > In any case, perhaps not the best example to hold up in this discussion, > since it brings up tangential issues. > > Dan > > > -- > Any opinions expressed in this message are those of the author alone and do > not necessarily reflect any position of the author's employer. > > > > > At 10:37 AM -0500 3/5/13, Evan Leibovitch wrote: > >For what it's worth... > > > >At-Large has a similar diversity in view as I'm seeing here. What enabled > >ALAC to, by and large, get past this to a single statement involved the > >realization that this was indeed not a choice between absolutes, and that > >the binary essence of the question should not be taken for granted and is > >itself subject to challenge. > > > >The writers of the statement, studying the At-Large debate (which wasn't > >THAT different in substance from the one going on here), realized that it > >was not good-versus-evil so much as benign-versus-harmful. Those amongst > >us who defend closed generics (ie, the PoV expressed by Milton and Avri) > >were not fans of the practise, and actually saw little public benefit to > >most of them, but are unconvinced by the claims of harm. So we actually > >found surprisingly widespread agreement that most closed generics won't > >serve the public good, the disagreement was over whether the potential > >harm of closed generics was sufficient for ICANN to override historical > >policy consistency and change process mid-stream. > > > >At the same time, many in At-Large who believed on principle that closed > >generics are harmful (ie, Kathy's position) also came to understand that > >the position was also not quite so absolute, that there are potential > >implementations of closed generics that could benefit the public. Consider > >that a number of new gTLD applicants -- notably those most under fire for > >closed generics such as Google and Amazon -- don't necessarily make money > >by selling domains -- they bring the potential for new business models. > >What if Google wants to disrupt the domain industry the way it has already > >disrupted the email, office software and GPS industries -- by giving away > >domains but keeping control over the structure? Google already runs a free > >DNS service, and operates both Google+ and <http://blogger.com> > blogger.com > >under this model. > >What if Amazon were to offer free .book domains to any bookstore and > >publisher, but wanted to reserve the right to create its own policy to > >kick out any subdomain operator that violated a code of conduct? It might > >not be everyone's choice, but it's a legitimate option that could offer > >the public benefit. By many people's interpretation of the AG such schemes > >could only be done under a "closed" TLD. These are two examples, but they > >offers a taste of the kind of public-benefit alternative -- of real > >innovation in domain name distribution -- that can currently only be done > >as a closed domain. > > > >These two factors weighted heavily on the ability of ALAC to create a > >single statement that acknowledges the diversity while asserting the > >non-binary complexity of the issue. > > > >HTH, > > > >- Evan > > > > > >On 5 March 2013 09:46, Kathy Kleiman > ><<mailto:[log in to unmask]>[log in to unmask]> wrote: > > > >Why? It does not change the positions of the letter (favoring nasty > >closed generics). But it does change the debate to something more > >respectful and less vitriol. Not a reason to sign on - but a reason to > >support the process of disagreement... > > > >Kathy > > > > > >Seems a good suggestion to me. > > > >will people sign on if it is changed? > > > >avri > > > >On 4 Mar 2013, at 23:09, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > > > >Hi people, I generally agree. I suggest we do not use derisive expressions > >like "We find these claims to be hysterical...". > > > >frt rgds > > > >--c.a. > > > >On 03/04/2013 06:22 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > > >Dear NCSG members: > > > >A group of us, including so far Robin Gross, Avri Doria, Andrew Adams, > >Nicolas Adam and Brenden Kuerbis, have developed a comment with ICANN on > >the closed generic issue. > >You can read our comments at this Google docs link: > >< > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1tPuEELJ2y6-d0hwF_qPupQb0V5OEFpqkMwcApDRNZf0/edit?usp=sharing > > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1tPuEELJ2y6-d0hwF_qPupQb0V5OEFpqkMwcApDRNZf0/edit?usp=sharing > >We can still add names to the list of supporters, or you could file a > >quick and easy individual comment with ICANN expressing your support for > >the statement after it comes out. > > > >Milton L. Mueller > >Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies > >Internet Governance Project > ><http://blog.internetgovernance.org>http://blog.internetgovernance.org > > > > > > > >-- > > > > > > > > > >-- > > > >Evan Leibovitch > >Toronto Canada > > > >Em: evan at telly dot org > >Sk: evanleibovitch > >Tw: el56 > -- Evan Leibovitch Toronto Canada Em: evan at telly dot org Sk: evanleibovitch Tw: el56