Agenda for WT2 Meeting 13 April 2017 at 21:00 UTC
Dear All, This week on 13 April 2017 at 21 UTC we will be once again discussing Closed Generics. As of our last meeting, we went through the Pros and Cons of Closed Generics by looking at the comments made in the Public Comments. We have not reached a consensus on anything at this point, however, we have not had a lot of input for the Cons and potential harm of Closed Generics at the current time. This week we will try to distinguish what potential harm exists if Closed Generics were allowed by analyzing the Public Comments even further. I welcome anyone who would like to assist in this discussion and analysis by joining us this week. Below is the agenda. 1. *Welcome * 2. *SOI * 3. *Closed Generics* 4. *AOB* I look forward to speaking with everyone and having an exciting conversation! Kind regards, Michael Flemming
Dear All, Please find the material that we will be referring to in order to address potential harms of Closed Generics. Kind regards, Michael Flemming On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 6:28 PM, Michael Flemming < flemming@brightsconsulting.com> wrote:
Dear All,
This week on 13 April 2017 at 21 UTC we will be once again discussing Closed Generics. As of our last meeting, we went through the Pros and Cons of Closed Generics by looking at the comments made in the Public Comments. We have not reached a consensus on anything at this point, however, we have not had a lot of input for the Cons and potential harm of Closed Generics at the current time. This week we will try to distinguish what potential harm exists if Closed Generics were allowed by analyzing the Public Comments even further. I welcome anyone who would like to assist in this discussion and analysis by joining us this week. Below is the agenda.
1.
*Welcome * 2.
*SOI * 3. *Closed Generics*
4. *AOB*
I look forward to speaking with everyone and having an exciting conversation!
Kind regards,
Michael Flemming
Hi All, I'm a new member to this list, but there is a lot of material about the harms and concerns behind Closed Generics. In preparation for the meeting later today, I'll post some of it. I'm copying Michele Neylon, who was a leader in sharing concerns about Closed Generics with the ICANN Community in 2013. I don't think there is the time to prepare a robust debate for today, but hopefully at your next meeting, you might invite some of the names (people & their organizations) that you see in these materials into the discussion. There are also Community Objections on this issue that you might want to evaluate. Best regards, Kathy (Kleiman) ----------------------------------------------------------------- https://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-closed-generic-05feb13/msg00174.html Dear Sir / Madam I am submitting these comments on behalf of Blacknight, Ireland's only ICANN accredited registrar. They do not reflect the formal views of any stakeholder group, but those of our company. We are on the record with respect to our views on this issue, having spoken during the public forum at ICANN Toronto (http://toronto45.icann.org/node/34215) and having sent several letters to ICANN's board, which were co-signed by a broad cross-section of the ICANN Community: http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/program-status/correspondence/neylon-et-al-to-c... http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/program-status/correspondence/neylon-et-al-to-c... Rather than rehash our previous arguments I would prefer to simply state that they are unchanged. I've summarised some of the issues we see with them here: http://www.internetnews.me/2013/02/23/5-reasons-why-closed-generic-new-gtlds... It is also worth noting that our views are shared by some very large brands who have taken the time to submit very rational comments on this topic. But more importantly both consumer and trade organisations representing large numbers of internet users and businesses have too. Regards Michele Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions ♞ Hosting & Domains ICANN Accredited Registrar http://www.blacknight.co http://blog.blacknight.com/ Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 US: 213-233-1612 Locall: 1850 929 929 Facebook:http://fb.me/blacknight Twitter:http://twitter.com/mneylon ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845 On 4/12/2017 4:45 AM, Michael Flemming wrote:
Dear All,
Please find the material that we will be referring to in order to address potential harms of Closed Generics.
Kind regards,
Michael Flemming
On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 6:28 PM, Michael Flemming <flemming@brightsconsulting.com <mailto:flemming@brightsconsulting.com>> wrote:
Dear All,
This week on 13 April 2017 at 21 UTC we will be once again discussing Closed Generics. As of our last meeting, we went through the Pros and Cons of Closed Generics by looking at the comments made in the Public Comments. We have not reached a consensus on anything at this point, however, we have not had a lot of input for the Cons and potential harm of Closed Generics at the current time. This week we will try to distinguish what potential harm exists if Closed Generics were allowed by analyzing the Public Comments even further. I welcome anyone who would like to assist in this discussion and analysis by joining us this week. Below is the agenda.
1. /Welcome
/ 2. /SOI
/ 3. /Closed Generics/
4. /AOB/
I look forward to speaking with everyone and having an exciting conversation!
Kind regards,
Michael Flemming
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2
https://www.internetnews.me/2013/02/23/5-reasons-why-closed-generic-new-gtld... 5 Reasons Why Closed Generic New gTLDs Should Be Opposed By Michele Neylon I’m on the record multiple times over the last few months for my opinions on “closed generics”. I first posted about it here back in June of last year: Big Brands Trying To Corner Generic Namespaces? <http://www.internetnews.me/2012/06/14/big-brands-trying-to-corner-generic-na...> Since then I’ve sent several letters to ICANN (supported by many others) and have been quoted and referenced in several articles on the subject including Politico.com:ICANN’s debating what’s in a domain name <http://www.politico.com/story/2013/02/icanns-debating-whats-in-a-domain-name...> Others have spoken out on this topic also: * Kathy Kleiman to ICANN <http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/program-status/correspondence/kleiman-to-icann-...> * Microsoft to ICANN <http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/program-status/correspondence/pangborn-to-crock...> * Dave Winer <http://scriptingecho.wordpress.com/2012/06/15/tech-press-misses-googleamazon...> If you’re not a domain “geek” then the danger of this issue might not be that easy to understand, so here are five reasons why “closed generics” are a really bad idea. 1. The Internet thrives with freedom of choice and openness 2. Dozens of applications to ICANN for new top level domains (gTLDs) seek to completely segregate and close-off common words for use by one company, rather than for the entire industry, group or class. 3. Generic Words Belong to All People; .CLOUD, .BEAUTY, .BOOK, .BLOG, .SEARCH and .SECURITY should be open to all with appropriate interests and industries 4. Closed Generic TLDs lead to unfair closures and improper restrictions. Companies will be barred from using the generic string of their industry to promote their own businesses on an equal and fair footing online; Entrepreneurs and inventors will be inhibited from bringing new products to market for fear that a large segment of the Internet marketplace will be closed to them; and Consumers, thinking they are accessing an entire industry, will not know the name space is controlled by one entity and competitors are locked out 5. ICANN rules allowed a limited exception for Brands to create a closed space (.BMW), but not for entire classes of goods, services and people to close off (.STORE, .CARS and .BABY) Just over a week ago Conn and I recorded an interview with domain blogger and journalist Kevin Murphy <http://technology.ie/podcast-kevin-murphy-of-domain-incite/> in which we talked about several things including new TLDs. Kevin gave a fantastic example of a wonderful new TLD – .blog. As Kevin said in the interview, if you go to a .blog domain name you’d expect to find a “blog”. It’ll do exactly what you’d expect. But, as we know Google has applied for .blog and has stated that they’ll restrict the domain to Blogger. Here’s what they’ve told ICANN they intend to do: /The purpose of the proposed gTLD, .blog, is to provide a dedicated Internet space where Google can continue to innovate on its Blogger offerings. The mission of the proposed gTLD is to provide a dedicated domain space in which users can publish blogs. All registered domains in the .blog gTLD will automatically be delegated to Google DNS servers, which will in turn provide authoritative DNS responses pointing to the Google Blogger service. The mission of the proposed gTLD is to simplify the Blogger user experience. Users will be able to publish content on a unique .blog domain (e.g., myname.blog) which will serve as a short and memorable URL for a particular Blogger account. This mission will enhance consumer choice by providing new availability in the second-level domain space, creating new layers of organization on the Internet, improving the Google user experience, and signaling the kind of content available in the domain./ So you won’t be able to use a .blog with WordPress, MovableType <http://movabletype.com>, TypePad, Joomla or any of the other blogging platforms or solutions out there. So much for competition and choice! But it’s actually worse than that! /Charleston Road Registry intends to apply for an exemption to ICANN’s Registry Operator Code of Conduct and operate the proposed gTLD with Google as the sole registrar and registrant./ Translation: Google will be the holder / registrant / owner of *ALL* domains under .blog, so even if you are happy with being restricted to the Google blogging platform you’ll never have any real control over yourname.blog If you are a blogger, shouldn’t you be able to choose which blogging software or platform you use? Shouldn’t you be able to register a domain for yourself? What about some of the other closed generic applications? Look at a sample of them below: * .app (Amazon) * .app (Google) * .baby (Johnson & Johnson) * .antivirus (Symantec) * .book (Amazon) * .cloud (Symantec) * .hair (L’Oreal) * .video (Amazon) What gives Symantec <http://symantec.com>exclusive rights to every single domain under .cloud ? What about Amazonand .video? If you agree that this kind of use of new TLDs is a fundamentally bad idea then please let ICANN know via their comment period here <https://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/closed-generic-05feb13-en.htm>. --------------- Best, Kathy On 4/13/2017 11:23 AM, Kathy Kleiman wrote:
Hi All,
I'm a new member to this list, but there is a lot of material about the harms and concerns behind Closed Generics. In preparation for the meeting later today, I'll post some of it. I'm copying Michele Neylon, who was a leader in sharing concerns about Closed Generics with the ICANN Community in 2013.
I don't think there is the time to prepare a robust debate for today, but hopefully at your next meeting, you might invite some of the names (people & their organizations) that you see in these materials into the discussion. There are also Community Objections on this issue that you might want to evaluate.
Best regards, Kathy (Kleiman)
-----------------------------------------------------------------
https://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-closed-generic-05feb13/msg00174.html
Dear Sir / Madam
I am submitting these comments on behalf of Blacknight, Ireland's only ICANN accredited registrar.
They do not reflect the formal views of any stakeholder group, but those of our company.
We are on the record with respect to our views on this issue, having spoken during the public forum at ICANN Toronto (http://toronto45.icann.org/node/34215) and having sent several letters to ICANN's board, which were co-signed by a broad cross-section of the ICANN Community:
http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/program-status/correspondence/neylon-et-al-to-c...
http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/program-status/correspondence/neylon-et-al-to-c...
Rather than rehash our previous arguments I would prefer to simply state that they are unchanged.
I've summarised some of the issues we see with them here:
http://www.internetnews.me/2013/02/23/5-reasons-why-closed-generic-new-gtlds...
It is also worth noting that our views are shared by some very large brands who have taken the time to submit very rational comments on this topic.
But more importantly both consumer and trade organisations representing large numbers of internet users and businesses have too.
Regards
Michele
Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions ♞ Hosting & Domains ICANN Accredited Registrar http://www.blacknight.co http://blog.blacknight.com/ Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 US: 213-233-1612 Locall: 1850 929 929 Facebook:http://fb.me/blacknight Twitter:http://twitter.com/mneylon ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845
On 4/12/2017 4:45 AM, Michael Flemming wrote:
Dear All,
Please find the material that we will be referring to in order to address potential harms of Closed Generics.
Kind regards,
Michael Flemming
On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 6:28 PM, Michael Flemming <flemming@brightsconsulting.com <mailto:flemming@brightsconsulting.com>> wrote:
Dear All,
This week on 13 April 2017 at 21 UTC we will be once again discussing Closed Generics. As of our last meeting, we went through the Pros and Cons of Closed Generics by looking at the comments made in the Public Comments. We have not reached a consensus on anything at this point, however, we have not had a lot of input for the Cons and potential harm of Closed Generics at the current time. This week we will try to distinguish what potential harm exists if Closed Generics were allowed by analyzing the Public Comments even further. I welcome anyone who would like to assist in this discussion and analysis by joining us this week. Below is the agenda.
1. /Welcome
/ 2. /SOI
/ 3. /Closed Generics/
4. /AOB/
I look forward to speaking with everyone and having an exciting conversation!
Kind regards,
Michael Flemming
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2
Another part of our discussion on this issue in the first Round (for better formatting, please read it from the link) Letter to Fadi, Steve, Akram, Alain and Heather Dryden, September 24, 2012 https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/neylon-et-al-to-chehade... The rapid growth and adoption of the Internet over the past two decades hastransformed the lives of billions of people, and reinvented communication, commerce, and society. Countless economic and cultural barriers have been eliminated as a direct result of the freedom of choice and openness made possible by the Internet. Notably, the stated goals underlying ICANN’s current efforts to expand the Domain Name System (DNS) by adding new generic Top-Level Domains (gTLDs) are to “increase competition and choice.” We, the undersigned individuals and organizations, support those goals wholeheartedly and without reservation. However, we are concerned that some pending gTLD applications seek to be operated in a “closed” manner in reliance upon Section 6 of Specification 1 (“Registry Operator Code of Conduct”) in Module 5 (“Base New gTLD Agreement”) of the Applicant Guidebook, which provides: /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 reas// //onable 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.// / Based on our collective industry experience, we are of the opinion that the underlying intention of Section 6 was to allow for the operation of closed gTLDs only under very defined circumstances. Specifically, that closed gTLDs should be reserved for only those strings in which the applicant possesses established (i.e., legally recognized) intellectual property rights, basically brand names. We believe that this interpretation of Section 6 is inherently logical especially in view of the discussions that preceded the opening of gTLDs--which focused, in very large part, on expanding choices and opportunities as well as promoting innovation, for Internet consumers worldwide. Further, generic words used in a generic way belong to all people. It is inherently in the public interest to allow access to generic new gTLDs to the whole of the Internet Community, e.g., .BLOG, .MUSIC, .CLOUD. Allowing everyone to register and use second level domain names of these powerful, generic TLDs is exactly what we envisioned the New gTLD Program would do. In contrast, to allow individual Registry Operators to segregate and close-off common words for which they do not possess intellectual property rights in effect allows them to circumvent nation-states’ entrenched legal processes for obtaining legitimate and recognized trademark protections. Accordingly, we respectfully request that ICANN clarify the circumstances under which the Section 6 exemption shall apply, and if necessary, allow applicants to amend their applications to comply with such clarification. As an alternative, the Applicant could demonstrate that they have internationally established and exclusive rights to the string in question, and that it is not a generic term. Our goal, as always, is to foster consumer choice and nurture a free and open Internet. With sincere thanks for your consideration, Michele Neylon, Blacknight Scott Pinzon, former Director of Marketing and Outreach, ICANN Luc Seufer, EuroDNS Francesco Cetraro Nigel Roberts Chris Kurk, DomainPeople Inc Chris Pelling, Netearth One Inc Michael Shohat, Conon AG Paul Andersen, Arctic Names Frédéric Guillemaut, MailClub.fr Robert Birkner, 1API GmbH Kelly Hardy, Kelly Hardy Consulting Gerardo Aristizabal, Cci reg s.a. Benny Samuelsen, Nordreg AB Colin McDermott, Banc Media Tom Gilles, newgtldsite.com On 4/13/2017 11:23 AM, Kathy Kleiman wrote:
Hi All,
I'm a new member to this list, but there is a lot of material about the harms and concerns behind Closed Generics. In preparation for the meeting later today, I'll post some of it. I'm copying Michele Neylon, who was a leader in sharing concerns about Closed Generics with the ICANN Community in 2013.
I don't think there is the time to prepare a robust debate for today, but hopefully at your next meeting, you might invite some of the names (people & their organizations) that you see in these materials into the discussion. There are also Community Objections on this issue that you might want to evaluate.
Best regards, Kathy (Kleiman)
-----------------------------------------------------------------
https://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-closed-generic-05feb13/msg00174.html
Dear Sir / Madam
I am submitting these comments on behalf of Blacknight, Ireland's only ICANN accredited registrar.
They do not reflect the formal views of any stakeholder group, but those of our company.
We are on the record with respect to our views on this issue, having spoken during the public forum at ICANN Toronto (http://toronto45.icann.org/node/34215) and having sent several letters to ICANN's board, which were co-signed by a broad cross-section of the ICANN Community:
http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/program-status/correspondence/neylon-et-al-to-c...
http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/program-status/correspondence/neylon-et-al-to-c...
Rather than rehash our previous arguments I would prefer to simply state that they are unchanged.
I've summarised some of the issues we see with them here:
http://www.internetnews.me/2013/02/23/5-reasons-why-closed-generic-new-gtlds...
It is also worth noting that our views are shared by some very large brands who have taken the time to submit very rational comments on this topic.
But more importantly both consumer and trade organisations representing large numbers of internet users and businesses have too.
Regards
Michele
Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions ♞ Hosting & Domains ICANN Accredited Registrar http://www.blacknight.co http://blog.blacknight.com/ Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 US: 213-233-1612 Locall: 1850 929 929 Facebook:http://fb.me/blacknight Twitter:http://twitter.com/mneylon ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845
On 4/12/2017 4:45 AM, Michael Flemming wrote:
Dear All,
Please find the material that we will be referring to in order to address potential harms of Closed Generics.
Kind regards,
Michael Flemming
On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 6:28 PM, Michael Flemming <flemming@brightsconsulting.com <mailto:flemming@brightsconsulting.com>> wrote:
Dear All,
This week on 13 April 2017 at 21 UTC we will be once again discussing Closed Generics. As of our last meeting, we went through the Pros and Cons of Closed Generics by looking at the comments made in the Public Comments. We have not reached a consensus on anything at this point, however, we have not had a lot of input for the Cons and potential harm of Closed Generics at the current time. This week we will try to distinguish what potential harm exists if Closed Generics were allowed by analyzing the Public Comments even further. I welcome anyone who would like to assist in this discussion and analysis by joining us this week. Below is the agenda.
1. /Welcome
/ 2. /SOI
/ 3. /Closed Generics/
4. /AOB/
I look forward to speaking with everyone and having an exciting conversation!
Kind regards,
Michael Flemming
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2
From the perspective of someone outside the ICANN arena on this issue, here is an article from The Hindu about L'Oreal seeking .BEAUTY as a closed generic. http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/beauty-lies-in-the-domain-of-the-highe... September 24, 2012 (Last posting for today. Many thanks, Kathy) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- L’Oréal has applied for /the top level domain (TLD) .beauty/ to the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (Icann), the global authority dealing with domain names on the Internet. TLDs are what we see on the right side of the dot in domain names — for example, .com and .net. If L’Oréal gets .beauty, which seems very likely, it will be able to reserve this top level domain name just for its own use. Unlike .com, .org, .net etc, which are public TLDs, .beauty will be a private TLD. What this means is that, for instance, “Raji Curls,” a beauty salon, will not be able to ask for www.rajicurls.beauty, as one could have in the case of .com. L’Oréal will have the exclusive use of .beauty, as its private property. If L’Oréal were to seek a trademark for “beauty,” it will be flatly refused. The word is too generic for anyone to be given monopoly rights over it. It is therefore surprising that L’Oréal should be able to get global monopoly rights on .beauty, just because it is willing to pay $1,85,000, the application fees for new TLDs, to Icann. How L’Oréal will leverage this privileged association with a key symbolic term of our culture will be an interesting exercise to follow. But the goldmine is there for anyone to see. It can certainly begin by propagating the term “.beauty” in all its communications and expressions. With time, demonstrating the long association, it could also seek trademark rights on “.beauty,” and so will go on the saga of how L’Oréal became beauty, and beauty, L’Oréal! Incidentally, L’Oréal is also seeking private ownership of .makeup, .skin, .hair and .salon. *The case of Amazon* The problem becomes even more pernicious when the whole business of a company is digital. Amazon, for instance, has applied for .book as a private exclusive TLD. Soon, book, or at least the digital book — which is what .book would signify — /will be what is offered by Amazon/. One would think that this is too large an unfair advantage to hand over to Amazon which already engages in monopoly practices in the area of digital books, through the “locked-in” Kindle model. (Well, it can name “Kindle” .book now!) If this is getting a bit disconcerting, what about “.cloud” being the name of /the/ online computing system that Google runs, since Google would most likely soon have the exclusive use of .cloud? Cloud computing is expected to be an industry that will be based on unprecedented vertical and horizontal integrations. In such a scenario, awarding exclusive use of .cloud to one company only makes the problem worse. *Private rights on public words* Words as parts of language are our common heritage. It is obvious that language, and its specific uses, have to be zealously protected, as public domain, that is equally accessible to all. Words used in some forms however are unique identifiers, which cannot be shared. Trademarks and domain names are two examples of such unique identifiers. Trademark authorities are very strict about not allowing generic names as trademarks. Authorities registering names of companies, organisations, etc are similarly very cautious and exacting, in terms of seeking very good reasons for claiming anything that may appear to interfere with common ownership of names, words, phrases and language. Icann, however, seems to have thrown all caution to the winds. It is not only .beauty, .book and .cloud that are being taken, and privatised. A host of other generic words like, .love, .school, .kid. .music. .apps. .home, .buy, .mail, .eat. .movie, .car, .author, .joy, .green etc are also up for sale. Those words that attract more than one suitor will be auctioned. Owners of most existing TLDs, like .com and .org, are obliged to make second level domain names (like “thehindu” in www.thehindu.com) available to the public in the open market. It is also useful that, till now, TLDs have largely been confined to three letters, which arrangement greatly limits the semantic possibilities that can be associated with TLDs. It is not evident what public interest is served by giving a go-by to these two very sensible provisions of the earlier TLD policy in this round of allocations, allowing private (as against public) TLDs that employ full generic words. In fact, Esther Dyson, the founding chairman of Icann, has said that there was no reason at all to establish new TLDs. Icann must understand that it is a governance system with the responsibility of protecting and promoting public interest. It is not a private company offering products and services with an aim to maximise profit. For this reason, it may have to be more prudent than innovative. Icann is taking important decisions on behalf of people of the whole world. Giving off generic words as private TLDs is a zero sum game. What it gives to a private party for exclusive use is denied to everyone else to that extent. Icann is providing a few companies highly privileged association with some very important symbolic terms, thus compromising the common ownership of these elements of our cultural heritage. *‘Titles’ on monopoly empires* It is an unfortunate fact of the emerging digital ecology that a few companies have begun to monopolise complete segments of our civilisational system — one company claims to be organising the world’s knowledge for us, another positions itself as /the/ space for social networking, a third one is /the/ global distributed instant media, one company has always sought to be /the/ digital office suite, another is emerging as /the/ music store.... and so on. This is a rather disturbing trend. Instead of providing counter-measures to the emergent threat of monopolisation in the digital realm, Icann is accentuating it further through the new TLD programme. It is allowing mega corporates, interested in “representing” whole segments of our civilisational system, exclusive use of corresponding generic words like .book, .music, .media, .school, .beauty, .cloud, etc. Such benevolence on Icann’s part greatly helps cement the business plans of these corporates, who can employ their proprietorship over these words to redesign and shape the associated cultural phenomenon in the image of their own narrow interests, and then extract perpetual rents. No business model could be more remunerative. Over time, demonstrating long standing exclusive usage, these corporates may also seek trademark rights on these generic words, or at least the words with a dot before them. To take just one example, Google already owns close to 90 per cent of the search market. It now wants Icann to give it the “official stamp” for its monopoly position through an exclusive ownership of .search. Marketing manager for British domain-name registrar Names.co.uk, Stephen Ewart, calls this as “a silent privatisation of the Web.” “Once you own these spaces, you can write your own terms and conditions,” he says, adding how “big brands can decide who can be there and decide what can be put in that space.” It is difficult to comprehend how such a hugely problematic plan of allowing private TLDs employing generic names has managed to get through the numerous committees associated with Icann. Apart from the problem of corporate monopolies discussed here, there are other kinds of serious issues involved with applications that have been made for TLDs like .church and .islam. While Icann has an open window for public comments on the new TLD applications till September 26, any objection must pertain to specific TLD applications and not to the general policy itself. Hopefully, it will still be possible to save beauty from Loreal, and the book from Amazon. /(Parminder Jeet Singh is Executive Director, IT for Change, in special consultative status with the United Nations Economic and Social Council.)/
Dear All, I also urge you (like in many other aspects in the next round) to look at abuse potential! In the 2000/2004 and 2012 round we had by large this situation: * Applicants applied in good faith * Applicants ran a “old fashioned” type registry: o Registrants register SLDs through registrars at the registry o ICANN’s regulations adhere: * WHOIS requirements, * registrations are guaranteed and cannot be revoked, * pricing is stable and can (if) only changed across the board: not just for one domain! o The domain would ALWAYS route to the name servers of the registrant: * day and night * regardless from which location the query stems * regardless whether from a mobile device or landline Internet I can only assume that if generic keyword based gTLDs could be applied for and operated as “closed” TLD all or part that would change drastically! * The domains would maybe be “leased” – and not registered! Example: CentralNic’s pseudo third level “registrations” under ll.com SLDs like de.com! * The entire TLD (like de.com as well for example) might be sold to a third party – which might NOT honor the leases (so all domains would stop routing to the desired locations) * There might not be ANY “WHOIS” * Once a domain picks up traffic (and through the zone log files the registry would know) the “lease” could rise for that particular one domain (just like a lease of a commercial building rises if a bar or club has extraordinary success)´. * The domains might not always or in all occasions route to the desired name servers directly – the registry could split off mobile traffic and add advertisement for example! * There could be shade deals like: “Your domain for free if we can route every 10th visitor our way” – and then monetarizing the traffic for 20 seconds after that reroute it to the original page I have not really enough phantasy here – there might be much worse out there. Once we kiss the ICANN requirements “good bye” there could be ALL KIND of strange behavior – and in a closed generic it would be perfectly legal! So I say: There must be EXTRAORDINARY hurdles for closed TLDs. Doesn’t matter whether based on a “generic term” or not: Is “.xyz” generic? Is “.abc” generic? Is “.wtf” generic? The rule could be: * You have to be a brand – and prove it (just having a trademark doesn’t do the trick)! * The string shouldn’t match anything in any dictionary (unless you are a “global brand” like “sun” or “united”) * And you can use that TLD ONLY for your brand. Up till 2012 only ICANN insiders applied for TLDs. In the next round the ENTIRE GLOBE knows what a “new gTLD” is – and it will be more than easy to apply for one as there will be a MYRIAD of “consultancies” which offer cheap “one stop” solutions incl. application writing, RSP services, contracting with ICANN, registry in a box software, ICANN compliance, registrar onboarding and what not. There will be shady applicants, there will be straight out criminal subjects. And ICANN’s “purity test” will not keep them away. Sorry for being so negative – but better to raise awareness now than later having to hear “but oh my God: who would have THOUGHT?”. Thanks, Alexander From: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kathy Kleiman Sent: Thursday, April 13, 2017 6:23 PM To: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2@icann.org Cc: Michele Neylon - Blacknight <michele@blacknight.com> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2] Agenda for WT2 Meeting 13 April 2017 at 21:00 UTC Hi All, I'm a new member to this list, but there is a lot of material about the harms and concerns behind Closed Generics. In preparation for the meeting later today, I'll post some of it. I'm copying Michele Neylon, who was a leader in sharing concerns about Closed Generics with the ICANN Community in 2013. I don't think there is the time to prepare a robust debate for today, but hopefully at your next meeting, you might invite some of the names (people & their organizations) that you see in these materials into the discussion. There are also Community Objections on this issue that you might want to evaluate. Best regards, Kathy (Kleiman) ----------------------------------------------------------------- https://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-closed-generic-05feb13/msg00174.html Dear Sir / Madam I am submitting these comments on behalf of Blacknight, Ireland's only ICANN accredited registrar. They do not reflect the formal views of any stakeholder group, but those of our company. We are on the record with respect to our views on this issue, having spoken during the public forum at ICANN Toronto (http://toronto45.icann.org/node/34215) and having sent several letters to ICANN's board, which were co-signed by a broad cross-section of the ICANN Community: http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/program-status/correspondence/neylon-et-al-to-c... http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/program-status/correspondence/neylon-et-al-to-c... Rather than rehash our previous arguments I would prefer to simply state that they are unchanged. I've summarised some of the issues we see with them here: http://www.internetnews.me/2013/02/23/5-reasons-why-closed-generic-new-gtlds... It is also worth noting that our views are shared by some very large brands who have taken the time to submit very rational comments on this topic. But more importantly both consumer and trade organisations representing large numbers of internet users and businesses have too. Regards Michele Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions ♞ Hosting & Domains ICANN Accredited Registrar http://www.blacknight.co http://blog.blacknight.com/ Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 US: 213-233-1612 Locall: 1850 929 929 Facebook: http://fb.me/blacknight Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845 On 4/12/2017 4:45 AM, Michael Flemming wrote: Dear All, Please find the material that we will be referring to in order to address potential harms of Closed Generics. Kind regards, Michael Flemming On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 6:28 PM, Michael Flemming <flemming@brightsconsulting.com <mailto:flemming@brightsconsulting.com> > wrote: Dear All, This week on 13 April 2017 at 21 UTC we will be once again discussing Closed Generics. As of our last meeting, we went through the Pros and Cons of Closed Generics by looking at the comments made in the Public Comments. We have not reached a consensus on anything at this point, however, we have not had a lot of input for the Cons and potential harm of Closed Generics at the current time. This week we will try to distinguish what potential harm exists if Closed Generics were allowed by analyzing the Public Comments even further. I welcome anyone who would like to assist in this discussion and analysis by joining us this week. Below is the agenda. 1. Welcome 2. SOI 3. Closed Generics 4. AOB I look forward to speaking with everyone and having an exciting conversation! Kind regards, Michael Flemming _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2@icann.org <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2
participants (3)
-
Alexander Schubert -
Kathy Kleiman -
Michael Flemming