Re: [ALAC] Closed generic statement
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@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@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+(ALAC)>https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)
Alan, A suggestion to address Carlton's concern (not a full solution, but a partial one): "We can foresee *There may be* innovative business models that might allow a closed TLD to be in the public interest." Also, another suggestion for the final sentence in last paragraph: "Such uses should not be excluded *as long as it can be established that they serve the public interest*." Best regards, Rinalia On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 10:04 PM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@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: 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@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@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+(ALA...)
https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...)
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@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+(ALA...)
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 <alan.greenberg@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: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* =============================
On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 1:00 AM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@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.
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@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+(ALA...)
On 28 Feb 2013, at 15:04, Alan Greenberg wrote:
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."
How about: "On the whole, the ALAC cannot determine whether an unlimited closed generics provide public benefits." Though even this seems exaggerated. Why are we talking about unlimited closed generics. I thought we were talking about a very finite number. In fact a relatively small number. Has ALAC really determined that a small number of closed generics are not in the public interest? How was this determined? If indeed it was determined, we should describe how? Perhaps a truer statement might be: The current belief of some in ALAC is that the small number of closed generics may not be in the public interest. avri
participants (4)
-
Alan Greenberg -
Avri Doria -
Carlton Samuels -
Rinalia Abdul Rahim