Ah, I misread your wording "those most under fire for closed generics such as Google and Amazon" ... reading too quickly, parsed it wrong. Pardon, 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 1:44 AM -0500 3/6/13, Evan Leibovitch wrote: >On 6 March 2013 01:19, Dan Krimm ><<mailto:[log in to unmask]>[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>http://blogger.com><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:<mailto:[log in to unmask]>[log in to unmask]><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><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><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