- ALAC - lists.icann.org

A View on the Community Objection on .jiankang (.健康)
by Rinalia Abdul Rahim March 5, 2013

March 5, 2013

Dear ALAC Colleagues, This is FYI. Best regards, Rinalia ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Rinalia Abdul Rahim <rinalia.abdulrahim(a)gmail.com> Date: Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 12:40 PM Subject: Re: [APAC-Discuss] about .jiankang (.健康) and the proposed objection from ALAC To: apralo <apac-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> Dear APRALO, I would like to offer the following as food for thought for APRALO’s deliberation on whether or not to support the community objection against the new gTLD application for “.健康” by Stable Tone Limited and also to respond to some of the questions raised by Edmon Chung, whose views I value irrespective of the hat that he wears. I also appreciated hearing Richard’s views on the interpretation of “.健康”. *Does the string “.**健康**” mean “.health” or “.healthy”?* The answer is complicated because it can be both. While健康 can be viewed in broad terms to include health, healthy, wellbeing, wellness, etc., any interpretation is limited to aspects of health. What is important to bear in mind is that the concept of healthy/wellbeing/wellness is firmly within the realm of health and not separate to it. ** *WHO’s use of “**卫**生**” in its name to refer to health** * The World Health Organization’s core priority when it was set up was on prevention and control of diseases to protect the health of the public. It can be argued that “卫生” was selected because its meaning of “health” specifically includes “hygiene” and “sanitation,” which are critical elements in containing the spread of diseases and in safeguarding public health. * * *Why has IMIA not lodged objections against other strings like “.doctor”* IMIA’s response to this is that its “priority is to make sure that one Top Level Domain (TLD) can be protected and identified as a safer place for health information.” They also emphasize that they are prioritizing a TLD that cover health broadly (i.e., strings like .doctor and .medical are considered as too limited and specialized and maybe regulated in some countries already – all of which are subsets of health). It can be argued that IMIA’s interest in a broad understanding of health encompasses aspects of healthiness or wellbeing or wellness, which is supported by their identification of problematic statements in the applications being objected upon, including the one by Stable Tone Limited. ** * * *Can the use of ”**健康**” **cause confusion against the industry identified?* It depends on whether or not Chinese-speaking consumers differentiate between “health” and “healthy” when they see the string. If they don’t differentiate, then the potential for confusion exists. The applicant indicated that the target market is Chinese-speaking Internet users in general and primarily targeted at potential registrants and Internet users in Mainland China. In reality, given the borderless nature of the Internet, the potential market is Chinese-speaking consumers both inside and outside of Mainland China. There is a significant Chinese-speaking population in other countries in Asia as well as other regions. A random survey can easily determine if consumers differentiate “健康” / “jian kang” in terms of “health” and “healthy”. I did a simple test with a rough and ready method involving a small sample and asked Chinese-speaking individuals in Mainland China, Malaysia and Singapore (who are ordinary users and not related to ICANN or the domain name industry) about their views regarding the string. The response is startling in that there is variation including among those from Mainland China. Most view the string as “healthy”, but they also view it as BOTH “health” and “healthy”. A minority view it as purely health. Views that the string means “health” or both “health and healthy” would be problematic for the applicant in that it would defeat its argument that the target consumers do differentiate between the two, which is the basis for excluding “健康” from the community objection on .health. A proper random survey by an independent party involving a large sample size that controls for biases can elucidate the situation (i.e., refute or confirm), but the possibility of confusion exists until proven otherwise. Should the case for confusion be established, the issue then is what proportion of the market is likely to be confused and whether the proportion can be considered as negligible. *Can the use of ”**健康**” **cause harm to consumers?* This is the most important question and it allows the debate to go beyond the string interpretation issue and focus on the substance of the proposed TLD. In essence, the use of ”健康” can cause harm if consumer protection cannot be adequately safeguarded irrespective of whether “the distribution of and exchange of information, products and services” are related to health or healthy lifestyle. It is important to bear in mind that information, products and services on “healthy lifestyle” do impact health. Stable Tone’s application would inspire more confidence (and can be improved) if it had provided sufficient information in terms of how potential harm to consumer health can be constrained and what safeguards will be in place. The following are some areas of concern along these lines: (1) Representatives of Stable Tone indicated that the string (.健康) is “not focussed on the type of specific health-related services that may be within the ambit of any regulated industry such as the medical industry”. ------- This venture into an “unregulated industry” that implicates health raises concerns in terms of how consumer protection will be addressed. *[Note: the commitment to not venture into a regulated industry requires contractual enforcement from ICANN, which is still uncertain.]* (2) Stable Tone highlighted that “the lack of monitoring and abuse mitigation has led to a plethora of websites with fraudulent, unhealthy, even dangerous products and information” and that “it will take both technical as well as policy measures to differentiate and distinguish .健康TLD (.jiankang) from other TLDs rife with abusive domains which seek to misguide and defraud the consumers.” ------- These are good commitments, but the question is how. How would Stable Tone go about policing the TLD to protect consumers and which authoritative body/individuals would it consult in determining what is unhealthy or dangerous in an “unregulated industry”? The claim that the government will be watching and will take action is problematic in a situation where the industry is acknowledged to be unregulated. *In Conclusion* The At-Large community has a responsibility to advance and protect end user interests. In the case of health or anything related to health, the responsibility to protect is immense and it is appropriate to be cautious. IMIA as a credible advocate and representative of the global health community has stepped forward to express its concern and objection with clear justifiable grounds. The At-Large new gTLD Review Group has tested IMIA’s objection against 4 very strict criteria, which no other entity has succeeded in passing, and the Review Group has deemed the objection to be in scope and relevant. I am sympathetic to the case of Stable Tone. I recognize that it takes a considerable amount of effort and resources to apply for a TLD and I am viewing the application as an entrepreneurial initiative that was made in good faith with the intent to provide a namespace with innovation and consumer benefits. A TLD with a market as large as China plus the rest of the Chinese-speaking world has a very high revenue-generating potential. Should consumer health be adversely affected due to insufficient safeguards, it is the public health care system that will bear most of the burden (if not all). A venture into any area impacting any aspect of health requires special care and safeguards for consumer protection. I would recommend that Stable Tone be asked to provide clear guidelines and expand on its ideas for protecting consumer interests towards developing acceptable and appropriate measures for consumer health/wellbeing protection related to the proposed use of the TLD. I urge APRALO to consider this case very carefully in its “vote”, which is due tomorrow (i.e., March 6th) by way of the RALO Chair, and I hope that the above contributes to the thinking about the issue. Sincerely, Rinalia Abdul Rahim

1 0

Re: [ALAC] Closed generic statement [Suggested edits]
by Alan Greenberg March 1, 2013

March 1, 2013

As Olivier has pointed out, it is really too late to do anything about it now. I am pleased that the intent of the statement matches yours, so voting on it will not be problematic. I will note, however, that even if there had been time, I am not at all sure an ALAC statement should be quoting legal citations. There would be no credibility for the ALAC, largely composed on non-laywers, to be the authority on this, nor is it necessarily supportive of our user-centric mandate. If you feel that your additions, or perhaps your other wiki post will really help inform the Board, then by all means post it to the public comment as a personal comment. Alan At 01/03/2013 04:09 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: >On Sat, Mar 2, 2013 at 3:59 AM, Alan Greenberg ><<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> wrote: >Sala, do I understand correctly that what you >were proposing is to take the statement as is, but add those two sections? > >Alan > >Yes, Alan - I was merely suggesting adding the two sections. > >At 01/03/2013 07:29 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: >Dear ALAC, > >*The suggested changes is in BLUE.** * > >*Suggested Changes to the Draft Statement* > >In considering the matter of closed generic Top Level Domains (gTLDs), >ICANN is guided by The Affirmation of Commitments (AoC) between the United >States Department of Commerce (DOC) and ICANN clearly specify the promotion >of competition, consumer trust and consumer >choice.[1]<<https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=40927847&focusedCo…>https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=40927847&focusedCo…>It > >is also worth noting that there are several issues that surface with >closed gTLDs and these include but are not limited to the following: > > 1. Would the endorsement of Closed Generic Applications create a > > situation or a series of situations whether now or in the future that will > restrict competition? > 2. Would the endorsement of Closed Generic Applications create a > > situation where there is a dominant position within the market? > 3. Would the endorsement of the Closed Generic Applications create a > > restraint in trade of a particular market? > 4. Would ICANN be immune from anti-trust liability? > >On 4th August 2012, a precedent was established in the *Manwin Licensing >International S.A.R.L., et al. v. ICM Registry, LLC, et al *where >the* *Honorable > >Philip S. Gutierrez, United States District Judge ruled that antitrust >claims could be filed over .xxx. Under the *Sherman Act § 2, 15 U.S.C. § 2* >*[2]*<<https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=40927847&focusedCo…>https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=40927847&focusedCo…>monopolizing > >trade is a felony. Under the circumstances where this trade >involves foreign nations such as generic TLD applications that have been >made by countries outside the US, then *Sherman Act § 7 (Foreign Trade >Antitrust Improvements Act of 1982), 15 U.S.C. § 6a* will apply in relation > >to conduct involving trade or commerce with foreign nations. > >On the whole, the ALAC does not believe that unrestricted closed generics >provide public benefit and would prefer that TLDs -- especially for strings >representing categories -- were not allocated in a way that would lock out >broad access to sub-domains. Some members of At-Large believe, on >principle, that all closed generics are harmful to the public good. Others >believe that, while not necessarily being beneficial to end users, closed >gTLDs should be allowed as simply being consistent with existing practise >for lower-level domains. > >Traditionally, the prohibition and control provisions laid out in >competition rules basically aims to prevent cartelization and >monopolization in markets for goods and services. Such developments in >markets inevitably harm consumer welfare which competition rules aim to >protect. On the same token, there are instances where some agreement may >limit competition to allow for social and economic benefits to pass to the >other. In order to ensure that such agreements with a net effect of >increasing competition can be made, an exemption regime is regulated in >competition law and agreements between undertakings in the same level >(horizontal) and different levels (vertical) of the market may be left >exempt from the prohibition of the competition rules under an exemption >system, provided they are not cartel agreements which are, by nature, out >of the scope of exemption. > >However, in developing this response to the Board's request, the ALAC found >the issue to be far more nuanced than the above hard positions would >suggest. There may be innovative business models that might allow a closed >TLD to be in the public interest. An example might be a registry that makes >2nd level names available at no cost to anyone, but retains legal control >over them. This is similar to the model used by Facebook and many blog >hosting sites. Allowance should be made for applicants interested in >widespread sub-domain distribution that do not require domain-name sales as >a source of revenue, or for other forms of sub-domain allocation. > >Whether a generic-word string is used with its generic meaning or in some >other context may also be relevant. The fictitious but famous computer >manufacturer, Orange Computers Inc. using the TLD ".orange" might be >acceptable, while the same string used as a closed TLD by a California >Orange Growers Cooperative (and not allowing access to orange producers >from Florida or Mediterranean and South American countries) might well be >considered unacceptable. > >Allowing this nuanced approach would likely involve a case by case review >of how a TLD will be used and how its sub-domains will be allocated. >Moreover, it would require a contractual commitment to not change that >model once the TLD is delegated. > >In summary, the ALAC believes that completely uncontrolled use of generic >words as TLDs is not something that ICANN should be supporting. However, >some instances of generic word TLDs could be both reasonable and have very >strong benefits of just the sort that ICANN was seeking when the TLD space >was opened. Such uses should not be excluded *a*s long as it can be > >established that they serve the public interest. > >------------------------------ > >[1]<<https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=40927847&focusedCo…>https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=40927847&focusedCo…>Clauses > >3 and 9.3 of the Affirmation of Commitment between the United >States Department of Commerce and the Internet Corporation for Assigned >Names and Numbers > > > > > >Kind Regards, >Sala >_______________________________________________ >ALAC mailing list ><mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org>ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac > >At-Large Online: <http://www.atlarge.icann.org>http://www.atlarge.icann.org >ALAC Working Wiki: ><https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL…>https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL… > > > > > >-- >Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >P.O. Box 17862 >Suva >Fiji > >Twitter: @SalanietaT >Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >Tel: +679 3544828 >Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 > >

2 1

Closed generic statement [Suggested edits]
by Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro March 1, 2013

March 1, 2013

Dear ALAC, *The suggested changes is in BLUE.** * *Suggested Changes to the Draft Statement* In considering the matter of closed generic Top Level Domains (gTLDs), ICANN is guided by The Affirmation of Commitments (AoC) between the United States Department of Commerce (DOC) and ICANN clearly specify the promotion of competition, consumer trust and consumer choice.[1]<https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=40927847&focusedCo…>It is also worth noting that there are several issues that surface with closed gTLDs and these include but are not limited to the following: 1. Would the endorsement of “Closed Generic” Applications create a situation or a series of situations whether now or in the future that will restrict competition? 2. Would the endorsement of “Closed Generic” Applications create a situation where there is a dominant position within the market? 3. Would the endorsement of the “Closed Generic” Applications create a restraint in trade of a particular market? 4. Would ICANN be immune from anti-trust liability? On 4th August 2012, a precedent was established in the *Manwin Licensing International S.A.R.L., et al. v. ICM Registry, LLC, et al *where the* *Honorable Philip S. Gutierrez, United States District Judge ruled that antitrust claims could be filed over .xxx. Under the *Sherman Act § 2, 15 U.S.C. § 2* *[2]*<https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=40927847&focusedCo…>monopolizing trade is a felony. Under the circumstances where this trade involves foreign nations such as generic TLD applications that have been made by countries outside the US, then *Sherman Act § 7 (Foreign Trade Antitrust Improvements Act of 1982), 15 U.S.C. § 6a* will apply in relation to conduct involving trade or commerce with foreign nations. On the whole, the ALAC does not believe that unrestricted closed generics provide public benefit and would prefer that TLDs -- especially for strings representing categories -- were not allocated in a way that would lock out broad access to sub-domains. Some members of At-Large believe, on principle, that all closed generics are harmful to the public good. Others believe that, while not necessarily being beneficial to end users, closed gTLDs should be allowed as simply being consistent with existing practise for lower-level domains. Traditionally, the prohibition and control provisions laid out in competition rules basically aims to prevent cartelization and monopolization in markets for goods and services. Such developments in markets inevitably harm consumer welfare which competition rules aim to protect. On the same token, there are instances where some agreement may limit competition to allow for social and economic benefits to pass to the other. In order to ensure that such agreements with a net effect of increasing competition can be made, an exemption regime is regulated in competition law and agreements between undertakings in the same level (horizontal) and different levels (vertical) of the market may be left exempt from the prohibition of the competition rules under an exemption system, provided they are not cartel agreements which are, by nature, out of the scope of exemption. However, in developing this response to the Board's request, the ALAC found the issue to be far more nuanced than the above hard positions would suggest. There may be innovative business models that might allow a closed TLD to be in the public interest. An example might be a registry that makes 2nd level names available at no cost to anyone, but retains legal control over them. This is similar to the model used by Facebook and many blog hosting sites. Allowance should be made for applicants interested in widespread sub-domain distribution that do not require domain-name sales as a source of revenue, or for other forms of sub-domain allocation. Whether a generic-word string is used with its generic meaning or in some other context may also be relevant. The fictitious but famous computer manufacturer, Orange Computers Inc. using the TLD ".orange" might be acceptable, while the same string used as a closed TLD by a California Orange Growers Cooperative (and not allowing access to orange producers from Florida or Mediterranean and South American countries) might well be considered unacceptable. Allowing this nuanced approach would likely involve a case by case review of how a TLD will be used and how its sub-domains will be allocated. Moreover, it would require a contractual commitment to not change that model once the TLD is delegated. In summary, the ALAC believes that completely uncontrolled use of generic words as TLDs is not something that ICANN should be supporting. However, some instances of generic word TLDs could be both reasonable and have very strong benefits of just the sort that ICANN was seeking when the TLD space was opened. Such uses should not be excluded *a*s long as it can be established that they serve the public interest. ------------------------------ [1]<https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=40927847&focusedCo…>Clauses 3 and 9.3 of the Affirmation of Commitment between the United States Department of Commerce and the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers Kind Regards, Sala

3 5

Re: [ALAC] Closed generic statement [Suggested edits]
by Alan Greenberg March 1, 2013

March 1, 2013

Sala, do I understand correctly that what you were proposing is to take the statement as is, but add those two sections? Alan At 01/03/2013 07:29 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: >Dear ALAC, > >*The suggested changes is in BLUE.** * > >*Suggested Changes to the Draft Statement* > >In considering the matter of closed generic Top Level Domains (gTLDs), >ICANN is guided by The Affirmation of Commitments (AoC) between the United >States Department of Commerce (DOC) and ICANN clearly specify the promotion >of competition, consumer trust and consumer >choice.[1]<https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=40927847&focusedCo…>It >is also worth noting that there are several issues that surface with >closed gTLDs and these include but are not limited to the following: > > 1. Would the endorsement of Closed Generic Applications create a > situation or a series of situations whether now or in the future that will > restrict competition? > 2. Would the endorsement of Closed Generic Applications create a > situation where there is a dominant position within the market? > 3. Would the endorsement of the Closed Generic Applications create a > restraint in trade of a particular market? > 4. Would ICANN be immune from anti-trust liability? > >On 4th August 2012, a precedent was established in the *Manwin Licensing >International S.A.R.L., et al. v. ICM Registry, LLC, et al *where >the* *Honorable >Philip S. Gutierrez, United States District Judge ruled that antitrust >claims could be filed over .xxx. Under the *Sherman Act § 2, 15 U.S.C. § 2* >*[2]*<https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=40927847&focusedCo…>monopolizing >trade is a felony. Under the circumstances where this trade >involves foreign nations such as generic TLD applications that have been >made by countries outside the US, then *Sherman Act § 7 (Foreign Trade >Antitrust Improvements Act of 1982), 15 U.S.C. § 6a* will apply in relation >to conduct involving trade or commerce with foreign nations. > >On the whole, the ALAC does not believe that unrestricted closed generics >provide public benefit and would prefer that TLDs -- especially for strings >representing categories -- were not allocated in a way that would lock out >broad access to sub-domains. Some members of At-Large believe, on >principle, that all closed generics are harmful to the public good. Others >believe that, while not necessarily being beneficial to end users, closed >gTLDs should be allowed as simply being consistent with existing practise >for lower-level domains. > >Traditionally, the prohibition and control provisions laid out in >competition rules basically aims to prevent cartelization and >monopolization in markets for goods and services. Such developments in >markets inevitably harm consumer welfare which competition rules aim to >protect. On the same token, there are instances where some agreement may >limit competition to allow for social and economic benefits to pass to the >other. In order to ensure that such agreements with a net effect of >increasing competition can be made, an exemption regime is regulated in >competition law and agreements between undertakings in the same level >(horizontal) and different levels (vertical) of the market may be left >exempt from the prohibition of the competition rules under an exemption >system, provided they are not cartel agreements which are, by nature, out >of the scope of exemption. > >However, in developing this response to the Board's request, the ALAC found >the issue to be far more nuanced than the above hard positions would >suggest. There may be innovative business models that might allow a closed >TLD to be in the public interest. An example might be a registry that makes >2nd level names available at no cost to anyone, but retains legal control >over them. This is similar to the model used by Facebook and many blog >hosting sites. Allowance should be made for applicants interested in >widespread sub-domain distribution that do not require domain-name sales as >a source of revenue, or for other forms of sub-domain allocation. > >Whether a generic-word string is used with its generic meaning or in some >other context may also be relevant. The fictitious but famous computer >manufacturer, Orange Computers Inc. using the TLD ".orange" might be >acceptable, while the same string used as a closed TLD by a California >Orange Growers Cooperative (and not allowing access to orange producers >from Florida or Mediterranean and South American countries) might well be >considered unacceptable. > >Allowing this nuanced approach would likely involve a case by case review >of how a TLD will be used and how its sub-domains will be allocated. >Moreover, it would require a contractual commitment to not change that >model once the TLD is delegated. > >In summary, the ALAC believes that completely uncontrolled use of generic >words as TLDs is not something that ICANN should be supporting. However, >some instances of generic word TLDs could be both reasonable and have very >strong benefits of just the sort that ICANN was seeking when the TLD space >was opened. Such uses should not be excluded *a*s long as it can be >established that they serve the public interest. > >------------------------------ > >[1]<https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=40927847&focusedCo…>Clauses >3 and 9.3 of the Affirmation of Commitment between the United >States Department of Commerce and the Internet Corporation for Assigned >Names and Numbers > > > > > >Kind Regards, >Sala >_______________________________________________ >ALAC mailing list >ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac > >At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org >ALAC Working Wiki: >https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL…

2 1

Re: [ALAC] Closed generic statement
by Alan Greenberg March 1, 2013

March 1, 2013

Evan has kindly pointed out that in my last sentence before my signature, it should have been "... ADDED in the last sentence." Alan (trying to extract his foot from his mouth, and hoping to teach his fingers how to select the correct keys) At 28/02/2013 01:23 PM, Alan Greenberg wrote: >Evan and I have agreed on three small changes that have been >suggested. They are shown on the wiki at >https://community.icann.org/x/Z4JwAg. The resultant version is: >==== >On the whole, the ALAC does not believe that unlimited closed >generics provide public benefit and would prefer that TLDs -- >especially for strings representing categories -- were not allocated >in a way that would lock out broad access to sub-domains. Some >members of At-Large believe, on principle, that all closed generics >are harmful to the public good. Others believe that, while not >necessarily being beneficial to end users, closed gTLDs should be >allowed as simply being consistent with existing practise for >lower-level domains. > >However, in developing this response to the Board's request, the ALAC >found the issue to be far more nuanced than the above hard positions >would suggest. There may be innovative business models that might >allow a closed TLD to be in the public interest. An example might be >a registry that makes 2nd level names available at no cost to anyone, >but retains legal control over them. This is similar to the model >used by Facebook and many blog hosting sites. Allowance should be >made for applicants interested in widespread sub-domain distribution >that do not require domain-name sales as a source of revenue, or for >other forms of sub-domain allocation. > >Whether a generic-word string is used with its generic meaning or in >some other context may also be relevant. The fictitious but famous >computer manufacturer, Orange Computers Inc. using the TLD ".orange" >might be acceptable, while the same string used as a closed TLD by a >California Orange Growers Cooperative (and not allowing access to >orange producers from Florida or Mediterranean and South American >countries) might well be considered unacceptable. > >Allowing this nuanced approach would likely involve a case by case >review of how a TLD will be used and how its sub-domains will be >allocated. Moreover, it would require a contractual commitment to not >change that model once the TLD is delegated. > >In summary, the ALAC believes that completely uncontrolled use of >generic words as TLDs is not something that ICANN should be >supporting. However, some instances of generic word TLDs could be >both reasonable and have very strong benefits of just the sort that >ICANN was seeking when the TLD space was opened. Such uses should not >be excluded as long as it can be established that they serve the >public interest. >==== >The changes were: >- "unlimited" added in the first sentence. >- "We can foresee" changed to "There may be" in the 2nd sentence of >paragraph 2. >- "as long as it can be established that they serve the public >interest" assed in the last sentence. > >Alan > >At 28/02/2013 01:00 AM, Alan Greenberg wrote: > >At Tuesday's ALAC meeting, Evan presented a statement on closed > >generic word domains that gave the two opposing positions that had > >been expressed by various ALAC and At-Large people. I suggested that > >the ALAC not vote for or against that statement, but each member say > >with side they supported. As the discussion evolved, there was some > >discomfort about simply giving a tally of the two sides, and > >moreover, that it ignored a third option that allowed some parts of > >both sides to be supported. I volunteered to work with Evan to > >create a new version. > > > >I did create such a 3rd "in between" option. As we were reviewing > >it, and partially guided by a message from Roberto Gaetano, Evan > >suggested that this in-between option, with some enhancements, could > >be a single statement that most or all of the ALAC could support. > > > >What you see here is an evolution of that statement. Thanks to > >Olivier and Rinalia who identified a number of problems with > earlier versions. > > > >The comment period closes on March 7th, so a vote will need to be > >completed by March 6th. I believe that Olivier would like to start a > >vote relatively quickly, so if you have any problems with what you > >see here, please speak up quickly. > > > >This new statement is also posted on the wiki - > >https://community.icann.org/x/Z4JwAg. > > > >Alan > > > >================================= > > > >On the whole, the ALAC does not believe that closed generics provide > >public benefit and would prefer that TLDs -- especially for strings > >representing categories -- were not allocated in a way that would > >lock out broad access to sub-domains. Some members of At-Large > >believe, on principle, that all closed generics are harmful to the > >public good. Others believe that, while not necessarily being > >beneficial to end users, closed gTLDs should be allowed as simply > >being consistent with existing practise for lower-level domains. > > > >However, in developing this response to the Board's request, the > >ALAC found the issue to be far more nuanced than the above hard > >positions would suggest. We can foresee innovative business models > >that might allow a closed TLD to be in the public interest. An > >example might be a registry that makes 2nd level names available at > >no cost to anyone, but retains legal control over them. This is > >similar to the model used by Facebook and many blog hosting sites. > >Allowance should be made for applicants interested in widespread > >sub-domain distribution that do not require domain-name sales as a > >source of revenue, or for other forms of sub-domain allocation. > > > >Whether a generic-word string is used with its generic meaning or in > >some other context may also be relevant. The fictitious but famous > >computer manufacturer, Orange Computers Inc. using the TLD ".orange" > >might be acceptable, while the same string used as a closed TLD by a > >California Orange Growers Cooperative (and not allowing access to > >orange producers from Florida or Mediterranean and South American > >countries) might well be considered unacceptable. > > > >Allowing this nuanced approach would likely involve a case by case > >review of how a TLD will be used and how its sub-domains will be > >allocated. Moreover, it would require a contractual commitment to > >not change that model once the TLD is delegated. > > > >In summary, the ALAC believes that completely uncontrolled use of > >generic words as TLDs is not something that ICANN should be > >supporting. However, some instances of generic word TLDs could be > >both reasonable and have very strong benefits of just the sort that > >ICANN was seeking when the TLD space was opened. Such uses should > >not be excluded. > >_______________________________________________ >ALAC mailing list >ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac > >At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org >ALAC Working Wiki: >https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL…

2 1

FINAL: Closed generic statement
by Alan Greenberg March 1, 2013

March 1, 2013

This final version of the statement is also posted on the wiki - https://community.icann.org/x/Z4JwAg. The only change from earlier versions is that, based on input, the word "unlimited" was changed to "unrestricted" in the first sentence. The full text is: >On the whole, the ALAC does not believe that unrestricted closed >generics provide public benefit and would prefer that TLDs -- >especially for strings representing categories -- were not allocated >in a way that would lock out broad access to sub-domains. Some >members of At-Large believe, on principle, that all closed generics >are harmful to the public good. Others believe that, while not >necessarily being beneficial to end users, closed gTLDs should be >allowed as simply being consistent with existing practise for >lower-level domains. > >However, in developing this response to the Board's request, the >ALAC found the issue to be far more nuanced than the above hard >positions would suggest. There may be innovative business models >that might allow a closed TLD to be in the public interest. An >example might be a registry that makes 2nd level names available at >no cost to anyone, but retains legal control over them. This is >similar to the model used by Facebook and many blog hosting sites. >Allowance should be made for applicants interested in widespread >sub-domain distribution that do not require domain-name sales as a >source of revenue, or for other forms of sub-domain allocation. > >Whether a generic-word string is used with its generic meaning or in >some other context may also be relevant. The fictitious but famous >computer manufacturer, Orange Computers Inc. using the TLD ".orange" >might be acceptable, while the same string used as a closed TLD by a >California Orange Growers Cooperative (and not allowing access to >orange producers from Florida or Mediterranean and South American >countries) might well be considered unacceptable. > >Allowing this nuanced approach would likely involve a case by case >review of how a TLD will be used and how its sub-domains will be >allocated. Moreover, it would require a contractual commitment to >not change that model once the TLD is delegated. > >In summary, the ALAC believes that completely uncontrolled use of >generic words as TLDs is not something that ICANN should be >supporting. However, some instances of generic word TLDs could be >both reasonable and have very strong benefits of just the sort that >ICANN was seeking when the TLD space was opened. Such uses should >not be excluded as long as it can be established that they serve the >public interest. Thanks to all who contributed to this during the last two days, and particularly to Evan who did the bulk of the work and continued today even though he was in an all-day meeting. Alan

1 0

Re: [ALAC] Closed generic statement
by Alan Greenberg Feb. 28, 2013

Feb. 28, 2013

Evan and I have agreed on three small changes that have been suggested. They are shown on the wiki at https://community.icann.org/x/Z4JwAg. The resultant version is: ==== On the whole, the ALAC does not believe that unlimited closed generics provide public benefit and would prefer that TLDs -- especially for strings representing categories -- were not allocated in a way that would lock out broad access to sub-domains. Some members of At-Large believe, on principle, that all closed generics are harmful to the public good. Others believe that, while not necessarily being beneficial to end users, closed gTLDs should be allowed as simply being consistent with existing practise for lower-level domains. However, in developing this response to the Board's request, the ALAC found the issue to be far more nuanced than the above hard positions would suggest. There may be innovative business models that might allow a closed TLD to be in the public interest. An example might be a registry that makes 2nd level names available at no cost to anyone, but retains legal control over them. This is similar to the model used by Facebook and many blog hosting sites. Allowance should be made for applicants interested in widespread sub-domain distribution that do not require domain-name sales as a source of revenue, or for other forms of sub-domain allocation. Whether a generic-word string is used with its generic meaning or in some other context may also be relevant. The fictitious but famous computer manufacturer, Orange Computers Inc. using the TLD ".orange" might be acceptable, while the same string used as a closed TLD by a California Orange Growers Cooperative (and not allowing access to orange producers from Florida or Mediterranean and South American countries) might well be considered unacceptable. Allowing this nuanced approach would likely involve a case by case review of how a TLD will be used and how its sub-domains will be allocated. Moreover, it would require a contractual commitment to not change that model once the TLD is delegated. In summary, the ALAC believes that completely uncontrolled use of generic words as TLDs is not something that ICANN should be supporting. However, some instances of generic word TLDs could be both reasonable and have very strong benefits of just the sort that ICANN was seeking when the TLD space was opened. Such uses should not be excluded as long as it can be established that they serve the public interest. ==== The changes were: - "unlimited" added in the first sentence. - "We can foresee" changed to "There may be" in the 2nd sentence of paragraph 2. - "as long as it can be established that they serve the public interest" assed in the last sentence. Alan At 28/02/2013 01:00 AM, Alan Greenberg wrote: >At Tuesday's ALAC meeting, Evan presented a statement on closed >generic word domains that gave the two opposing positions that had >been expressed by various ALAC and At-Large people. I suggested that >the ALAC not vote for or against that statement, but each member say >with side they supported. As the discussion evolved, there was some >discomfort about simply giving a tally of the two sides, and >moreover, that it ignored a third option that allowed some parts of >both sides to be supported. I volunteered to work with Evan to >create a new version. > >I did create such a 3rd "in between" option. As we were reviewing >it, and partially guided by a message from Roberto Gaetano, Evan >suggested that this in-between option, with some enhancements, could >be a single statement that most or all of the ALAC could support. > >What you see here is an evolution of that statement. Thanks to >Olivier and Rinalia who identified a number of problems with earlier versions. > >The comment period closes on March 7th, so a vote will need to be >completed by March 6th. I believe that Olivier would like to start a >vote relatively quickly, so if you have any problems with what you >see here, please speak up quickly. > >This new statement is also posted on the wiki - >https://community.icann.org/x/Z4JwAg. > >Alan > >================================= > >On the whole, the ALAC does not believe that closed generics provide >public benefit and would prefer that TLDs -- especially for strings >representing categories -- were not allocated in a way that would >lock out broad access to sub-domains. Some members of At-Large >believe, on principle, that all closed generics are harmful to the >public good. Others believe that, while not necessarily being >beneficial to end users, closed gTLDs should be allowed as simply >being consistent with existing practise for lower-level domains. > >However, in developing this response to the Board's request, the >ALAC found the issue to be far more nuanced than the above hard >positions would suggest. We can foresee innovative business models >that might allow a closed TLD to be in the public interest. An >example might be a registry that makes 2nd level names available at >no cost to anyone, but retains legal control over them. This is >similar to the model used by Facebook and many blog hosting sites. >Allowance should be made for applicants interested in widespread >sub-domain distribution that do not require domain-name sales as a >source of revenue, or for other forms of sub-domain allocation. > >Whether a generic-word string is used with its generic meaning or in >some other context may also be relevant. The fictitious but famous >computer manufacturer, Orange Computers Inc. using the TLD ".orange" >might be acceptable, while the same string used as a closed TLD by a >California Orange Growers Cooperative (and not allowing access to >orange producers from Florida or Mediterranean and South American >countries) might well be considered unacceptable. > >Allowing this nuanced approach would likely involve a case by case >review of how a TLD will be used and how its sub-domains will be >allocated. Moreover, it would require a contractual commitment to >not change that model once the TLD is delegated. > >In summary, the ALAC believes that completely uncontrolled use of >generic words as TLDs is not something that ICANN should be >supporting. However, some instances of generic word TLDs could be >both reasonable and have very strong benefits of just the sort that >ICANN was seeking when the TLD space was opened. Such uses should >not be excluded.

1 0

Fwd: Invitation to March 4, 2013 Community Consultation on Proposed Changes to the New gTLD Registry Agreement
by Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond Feb. 28, 2013

Feb. 28, 2013

Dear all, please be so kind to find the enclosed invitation. I am pleased to note that our community is invited to attend the teleconference and have forwarded this message both to the ALAC list but also to our Registrant Rights mailing list. Warmest regards, Olivier -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Invitation to March 4, 2013 Community Consultation on Proposed Changes to the New gTLD Registry Agreement Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2013 15:46:36 +0000 From: Drazek, Keith <kdrazek(a)verisign.com> To: ocl(a)gih.com <ocl(a)gih.com> Hi Olivier, I hope you're doing well. Attached is an invitation to the Monday, March 4 community consultation teleconference on the proposed changes to the New gTLD Registry Agreement. You and any interested ALAC member are welcome to participate and/or listen in. Please feel free to circulate this to the ALAC list. Best regards, Keith Verisign *Keith Drazek* Director of Policy kdrazek(a)Verisign.com <mailto:kdrazek@Verisign.com> m: +1-571-377-9182 12061 Bluemont Way Reston, VA 20190 VerisignInc.com <http://www.verisigninc.com/> Verisign^(TM)

1 0

Re: [ALAC] Closed generic statement
by Alan Greenberg Feb. 28, 2013

Feb. 28, 2013

Isn't that what we are saying in the summary paragraph? Alan At 28/02/2013 10:01 AM, Carlton Samuels wrote: >Why not just "We are wary that depending on the business model that >is activated, closed generics may not advance the public >interest. However, from the evidence of existing business >frameworks like Facebook and some blog platforms, innovations yet >unknown may in fact deliver public benefits. Absent hard evidence, >we are therefore unwilling to support a blanket disapproval of the category." > >-Carlton > >============================== >Carlton A Samuels >Mobile: 876-818-1799 >Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround >============================= > > >On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 9:04 AM, Alan Greenberg ><<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> wrote: >Carlton, Evan and I worked very hard to craft a statement that we >hoped a majority of the ALAC could support. Do you have any specific >wording recommendations to change it to make it clearer or >more self-consistent? > >In response to your comments, I would suggest that the opening >sentence read "On the whole, the ALAC does not believe that >unlimited closed generics provide public benefit." > >Alan > > >At 28/02/2013 07:50 AM, Carlton Samuels wrote: >>The fundamental cannot be successfully refuted. So let's look at >>the other claim: the public interest is subverted. The statement >>itself does a good enough job to undermine that claim and shows up >>the internal inconsistency of the logic utilised. >> >>I am asserting the evidence that supports this declaration that >>closed generics are inimical to the public interest is well, weak, >>at best. All we can say for sure is that it tends to subvert the >>existing business model. And the evidence is right there in the statement! >> >>The first paragraph goes "On the whole, the ALAC does not believe >>that closed generics provide public benefit". >> >>Then that is undermined by Paragraph 2: "We can foresee innovative >>business models that might allow a closed TLD to be in the public >>interest. An example might be a registry that makes 2nd level names >>available at no cost to anyone, but retains legal control over >>them. This is similar to the model used by Facebook and many blog >>hosting sites." >> >>This is the problem with the statement......"We can forseee". >>"Forsee"! It is projecting - projecting - an outcome with evidence >>now available, slim as that is that mortally wounds the declaration >>of the fist paragraph. >> >>-Carlton >> >>============================== >>Carlton A Samuels >>Mobile: <tel:876-818-1799>876-818-1799 >>Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround >>============================= >> >> >>On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 1:00 AM, Alan Greenberg >><<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca > wrote: >>At Tuesday's ALAC meeting, Evan presented a statement on closed >>generic word domains that gave the two opposing positions that had >>been expressed by various ALAC and At-Large people. I suggested that >>the ALAC not vote for or against that statement, but each member say >>with side they supported. As the discussion evolved, there was some >>discomfort about simply giving a tally of the two sides, and >>moreover, that it ignored a third option that allowed some parts of >>both sides to be supported. I volunteered to work with Evan to create >>a new version. >>I did create such a 3rd "in between" option. As we were reviewing it, >>and partially guided by a message from Roberto Gaetano, Evan >>suggested that this in-between option, with some enhancements, could >>be a single statement that most or all of the ALAC could support. >>What you see here is an evolution of that statement. Thanks to >>Olivier and Rinalia who identified a number of problems with >>earlier versions. >>The comment period closes on March 7th, so a vote will need to be >>completed by March 6th. I believe that Olivier would like to start a >>vote relatively quickly, so if you have any problems with what you >>see here, please speak up quickly. >>This new statement is also posted on the wiki - >><https://community.icann.org/x/Z4JwAg>https://community.icann.org/x/Z4JwAg. >>Alan >>================================= >>On the whole, the ALAC does not believe that closed generics provide >>public benefit and would prefer that TLDs -- especially for strings >>representing categories -- were not allocated in a way that would >>lock out broad access to sub-domains. Some members of At-Large >>believe, on principle, that all closed generics are harmful to the >>public good. Others believe that, while not necessarily being >>beneficial to end users, closed gTLDs should be allowed as simply >>being consistent with existing practise for lower-level domains. >>However, in developing this response to the Board's request, the ALAC >>found the issue to be far more nuanced than the above hard positions >>would suggest. We can foresee innovative business models that might >>allow a closed TLD to be in the public interest. An example might be >>a registry that makes 2nd level names available at no cost to anyone, >>but retains legal control over them. This is similar to the model >>used by Facebook and many blog hosting sites. Allowance should be >>made for applicants interested in widespread sub-domain distribution >>that do not require domain-name sales as a source of revenue, or for >>other forms of sub-domain allocation. >>Whether a generic-word string is used with its generic meaning or in >>some other context may also be relevant. The fictitious but famous >>computer manufacturer, Orange Computers Inc. using the TLD ".orange" >>might be acceptable, while the same string used as a closed TLD by a >>California Orange Growers Cooperative (and not allowing access to >>orange producers from Florida or Mediterranean and South American >>countries) might well be considered unacceptable. >>Allowing this nuanced approach would likely involve a case by case >>review of how a TLD will be used and how its sub-domains will be >>allocated. Moreover, it would require a contractual commitment to not >>change that model once the TLD is delegated. >>In summary, the ALAC believes that completely uncontrolled use of >>generic words as TLDs is not something that ICANN should be >>supporting. However, some instances of generic word TLDs could be >>both reasonable and have very strong benefits of just the sort that >>ICANN was seeking when the TLD space was opened. Such uses should not >>be excluded. >> >>_______________________________________________ >>ALAC mailing list >><mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org>ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >>https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac >>At-Large Online: <http://www.atlarge.icann.org>http://www.atlarge.icann.org >>ALAC Working Wiki: >><https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL…>https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL… >>

1 0

Re: [ALAC] Closed generic statement
by Alan Greenberg Feb. 28, 2013

Feb. 28, 2013

Carlton, Evan and I worked very hard to craft a statement that we hoped a majority of the ALAC could support. Do you have any specific wording recommendations to change it to make it clearer or more self-consistent? In response to your comments, I would suggest that the opening sentence read "On the whole, the ALAC does not believe that unlimited closed generics provide public benefit." Alan At 28/02/2013 07:50 AM, Carlton Samuels wrote: >The fundamental cannot be successfully refuted. So let's look at >the other claim: the public interest is subverted. The statement >itself does a good enough job to undermine that claim and shows up >the internal inconsistency of the logic utilised. > >I am asserting the evidence that supports this declaration that >closed generics are inimical to the public interest is well, weak, >at best. All we can say for sure is that it tends to subvert the >existing business model. And the evidence is right there in the statement! > >The first paragraph goes "On the whole, the ALAC does not believe >that closed generics provide public benefit". > >Then that is undermined by Paragraph 2: "We can foresee innovative >business models that might allow a closed TLD to be in the public >interest. An example might be a registry that makes 2nd level names >available at no cost to anyone, but retains legal control over them. >This is similar to the model used by Facebook and many blog hosting sites." > >This is the problem with the statement......"We can forseee". >"Forsee"! It is projecting - projecting - an outcome with evidence >now available, slim as that is that mortally wounds the declaration >of the fist paragraph. > >-Carlton > >============================== >Carlton A Samuels >Mobile: 876-818-1799 >Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround >============================= > > >On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 1:00 AM, Alan Greenberg ><<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> wrote: >At Tuesday's ALAC meeting, Evan presented a statement on closed >generic word domains that gave the two opposing positions that had >been expressed by various ALAC and At-Large people. I suggested that >the ALAC not vote for or against that statement, but each member say >with side they supported. As the discussion evolved, there was some >discomfort about simply giving a tally of the two sides, and >moreover, that it ignored a third option that allowed some parts of >both sides to be supported. I volunteered to work with Evan to create >a new version. > >I did create such a 3rd "in between" option. As we were reviewing it, >and partially guided by a message from Roberto Gaetano, Evan >suggested that this in-between option, with some enhancements, could >be a single statement that most or all of the ALAC could support. > >What you see here is an evolution of that statement. Thanks to >Olivier and Rinalia who identified a number of problems with earlier versions. > >The comment period closes on March 7th, so a vote will need to be >completed by March 6th. I believe that Olivier would like to start a >vote relatively quickly, so if you have any problems with what you >see here, please speak up quickly. > >This new statement is also posted on the wiki - ><https://community.icann.org/x/Z4JwAg>https://community.icann.org/x/Z4JwAg. > >Alan > >================================= > >On the whole, the ALAC does not believe that closed generics provide >public benefit and would prefer that TLDs -- especially for strings >representing categories -- were not allocated in a way that would >lock out broad access to sub-domains. Some members of At-Large >believe, on principle, that all closed generics are harmful to the >public good. Others believe that, while not necessarily being >beneficial to end users, closed gTLDs should be allowed as simply >being consistent with existing practise for lower-level domains. > >However, in developing this response to the Board's request, the ALAC >found the issue to be far more nuanced than the above hard positions >would suggest. We can foresee innovative business models that might >allow a closed TLD to be in the public interest. An example might be >a registry that makes 2nd level names available at no cost to anyone, >but retains legal control over them. This is similar to the model >used by Facebook and many blog hosting sites. Allowance should be >made for applicants interested in widespread sub-domain distribution >that do not require domain-name sales as a source of revenue, or for >other forms of sub-domain allocation. > >Whether a generic-word string is used with its generic meaning or in >some other context may also be relevant. The fictitious but famous >computer manufacturer, Orange Computers Inc. using the TLD ".orange" >might be acceptable, while the same string used as a closed TLD by a >California Orange Growers Cooperative (and not allowing access to >orange producers from Florida or Mediterranean and South American >countries) might well be considered unacceptable. > >Allowing this nuanced approach would likely involve a case by case >review of how a TLD will be used and how its sub-domains will be >allocated. Moreover, it would require a contractual commitment to not >change that model once the TLD is delegated. > >In summary, the ALAC believes that completely uncontrolled use of >generic words as TLDs is not something that ICANN should be >supporting. However, some instances of generic word TLDs could be >both reasonable and have very strong benefits of just the sort that >ICANN was seeking when the TLD space was opened. Such uses should not >be excluded. > > >_______________________________________________ >ALAC mailing list ><mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org>ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac > >At-Large Online: <http://www.atlarge.icann.org>http://www.atlarge.icann.org >ALAC Working Wiki: ><https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL…>https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL… >

4 3