+++1 to the whole lot, reasons and analysis together. Its way more than just a 'closed' string and its implications. For unless and until one is willing to repudiate the entire ICANN enterprise, that is to say raze it to its foundation, it is an offense to reason to expect any objection to a generic string - I like Christopher's definition of that! - to stand. The ship has sailed. ICANN entire existence rests on monetizing common strings. Why, because they have meaning imputed, and, by extension, accrete value. Evan says it well; a string, a common word, is made chattel. Alchemy, if you will! So while I may be philosophically opposed to the idea that public and communal property is expropriated for private gain, I am wary of taking the Don Quixote role here. If you cannot show harm or outlaw a common word at the 2nd level. And if you cannot sign on to restitution and full redress of grievance I cannot in reason see this embraced at the top level. Since I don't now know the business models that are to be adopted by these so-called closed string registries, I'm disadvantaged in determining harm, if any. And assuming you could find some, I would likely consider those in context of the roadblocks faced by say a regular cat lover buying a domain in the .cat registry and wishing to use it to the greater glory of some haughty puss. Every man has the right to his poison. Hell, that might just be a manifestation of one of them cat-loving fetishes like the ancient Egyptians! Tell me quick, why should that intent be rubbished or dispossessed? Let's have the conversation. But let us be clear. Know by these presents that unless we are willing to embrace wind down of the ICANN enterprise, we are engaged purely in an exercise of sophistry. Word. -Carlton ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* ============================= On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 1:08 PM, Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> wrote:

The two (concrete, reall application) examples that seem to be used the most are:

1. .book -- multiple applications, but Amazon's (and IIRC Google's) is for a closed TLD

2. .beauty -- applied for by L'Oreal as a closed TLD

My own approach to this has been (what I believe to have been) straightforward. ICANN has never before cared about the appropriation of dictionary words at the second level (ie., books.com and beauty.com). Indeed, much of ICANN's revenue comes from the buying and trading of speculative domains based on dictionary words (or combinations of dictionary words) in the hope that someone wants it. There is a whole industry of domainers based on the hope that buried in their portfolio is the next "funds.com <http://fund.com>" (sold for $10M) or merely even just " cameras.com" ($1.5M).

To these eyes, the TLD expansion is merely a higher-stakes elevation of this same game. We have a company, Donuts, that has applied for a massive number of strings. At this point we don't know whether the company actually intends to run all the ones it has applied for; it is easy to suggest that some of its string contentions are for sale in the hope that one or more of its applications -- almost all for generic words -- is really wanted by someone who doesn't want to go to auction.

So ICANN has never had a problem with making dictionary words chattel, indeed it thrives on such activity. So we then have the added element of "closed" domains.

All we know about "closed" TLD proposals is that the applicants have no intention to redistribute subdomains through the usual supply chain of registrars and resellers. They intend to control -- ie, own -- all subdomains themselves. So it is of COURSE natural that the domain industry would protest. Registrars see an opportunity to sell domains vanish and speculators complain about the inability to trade domains in a potentially interesting (translation: "valuable") TLD.

Given the high amount of industry capture of the ICANN Board -- a similar level of capture that led to the whole wide-open TLD expansion adventure in the first place -- it is only to be expected that this industry is unhappy about the potential of "locking away" domains that it would love to sell / resell / auction to you. (Remember, policy here is made by the GNSO which is almost wholly made up of domain buyers and sellers. The public interest bodies -- governments and At-Large -- have sideline, advisory roles only.)

So what about the public good?

As a sheer matter of consistency, ICANN -- and both its industry and public advisory constituency bodies -- have no problem with closed generic strings at lower levels so should have no problem with them at the top level. The logic of how it is benign for Barnes & Noble to close off "*. books.com" but seemingly evil for Amazon to close off "*.books" has not yet been advanced in any but an emotional manner from what I have seen. If there is no confusion or harm done at the lower level inside dot-com (which many have seen as a "default" domain to date), it is hard to see how the same string as a TLD would necessarily cause significantly more confusion or harm done simply by elevating the whole situation up one level.

I personally agree that, in general closed ownership of common words is NOT a good thing. But I happen to believe that for second-level domains too, and that choice has LONG AGO closed and cannot be undone. Early on ICANN made a conscious, money-driven decision that domains were commodity rather than identity, and there is no solid evidence-backed reason that this philosophy, being acceptable at lower levels, is unacceptable at the top. There is no evidence that a public that has had to accept -- and deal with -- closed generic words as second-level domains in dot-com will suddenly forget this experience when the same strings start showing up at the top level.

Moreover, the move against closed domains indicates IMO a short-sightedness about how domains can be used. We have no idea how the "closed"domains will be allocated, The assumption is that a closed domain will be used 100% for internal company use. But I see a potential for creative uses in which a "closed" TLD owners indeed owns all subdomains but allows others to use them, perhaps even with long-term committment, for free. With companies not primarily in the domain-selling business such as Amazon, L'Oreal or Google getting involved, creative subdomain allocation schemes are possible that go beyond the binary choice of whether or not registrars can sell them like commodities. Banning closed domains denies the public from such experiments, and there is no reason that they should be limited to coined-word (ie, "dot-brand") strings.

(BTW, what about closed applications from brand names that are also generic words, such as Microsoft's application for ".live"?)

And then there are simple market forces. If enough people and potential registrants don't like ".beauty" being closed off, apply for an open ".glamour" TLD in the next round. No single word is irreplaceable, and thesauruses are easy to come by.

IMO, the only reason the Board is re-examining this issue is because the domain industry capture is in force in its opposition, cloaking itself as "public interest" when the real interest is simple selfishness, maintaining the status quo and stifling potentially disruptive innovation. To be concerned NOW about public confusion, after going through years of second-level-domain prosperity with no "public interest" complaints about closed strings, easily crosses the line from inconsistency to hypocrisy. And while I understand -- and am sympathetic -- to the genuine public interest advocates and GAC members who bemoan the commoditisation of the DNS and the private ownership of dictionary words, I ask: where the hell were you when this was a problem at the second level that could be actually fixed?

This is indeed a conversation that should have happened five -- or more -- years ago. At this point, the potential lawsuits likely -- from companies with bigger legal budgets than ICANN's -- are almost beyond contemplation. Sure, ICANN gave itself an out in the AG by allowing for retroactive changes. But this would be a biggie that would certainly leave ICANN legally exposed -- as it should be, for considering such a 11th hour redirection.

ICANN has clearly set its direction; closed generic-string TLDs are *not* unintended consequences, they are but a logical extension of everything ICANN has been about for a decade. Even blocking a handful of applications now won't change a thing. * * While this may not have always been true*, at this stage* the threat to innovation is greater than the threat to the public of just letting closed generics happen; or so it seems. This is not a source of dogmatism; my mind can be changed on this, but it will take far more evidence and much sounder logic than has appeared so far.

- Evan

On 6 February 2013 10:14, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:

...

Olivier, I completely agree. Some might remember that I raised this issue several months ago (that I thought that the window was re-opening and we had an opportunity to comment to the Board if we wish). Time is a lot shorter now.

The gNSO has explicitly been asked to comment, a near impossibility in that time-frame, even if there were unanimity there (which is unlikely). I think that the ALAC is nimble enough to do so, but we really need some input from ALAC and At-Large first. Quickly.

Alan

At 06/02/2013 03:42 AM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote:

...

Dear Alan,

thank you for forwarding this faster than I could read it. :-) Some might adopt a cynical attitude to this by saying that this is a classic case of the Board having put the carriage before the horses and that this debate was closed several years ago.

In fact, I think that it is exactly because of this kind of feeling that the ALAC should be looking at this very carefully. It is obviously of great concern to some Board members. From past discussions, I know that it is of great concern to some of our members whilst some other members do not think it is a problem. Regardless, with the very tight schedule that was imposed, we do not have the option of a reply period nor an extension but either way, I believe that we need to comment on this.

Matt will create a WIKI space ASAP on this. A pen-holder is invited to volunteer. Comments welcome, of course. Warmest regards,

Olivier

On 06/02/2013 04:54, Alan Greenberg wrote:

...

Note that the Public Comment closes on March 7 and does not seem to have a reply period. Alan

http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/closed-generic-05feb13-en.htm

...

...

...

ICANN is seeking public comment on the subject of "closed generic" gTLD applications and whether specific requirements should be adopted corresponding to this type of application. Stakeholder views are invited to help define and consider this issue. In particular, comments would be helpful in regard to proposed objective criteria

for:

...

- classifying certain applications as "closed generic" TLDs, i.e., how to determine whether a string is generic, and - determining the circumstances under which a particular TLD operator should be permitted to adopt "open" or "closed" registration

policies.

...

The New gTLD Program Committee of the ICANN Board of Directors has discussed this issue and has also directed completion of a set of focused research and analysis items to inform any possible action to be taken. At its 2 February 2013 meeting, the Committee passed the following resolution:

Whereas, the New gTLD Program Committee has received correspondence from the community addressing "closed generic" TLDs and understands that members of the community term a "closed generic" TLD as a TLD string that is a generic term and is proposed to be operated by a participant exclusively for its own benefit.

Whereas, ICANN implemented the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) policy recommendations on the "Introduction of New Generic Top-Level Domains", and within those policy recommendations there is no specific policy regarding "closed generic" top-level domains

(TLDs).

...

Whereas, members of the community have expressed concerns regarding applications for "closed generic" TLDs.

Whereas, the New gTLD Program Committee considers that it is important to understand all views and potential ramifications relating to 'closed generic' TLDs.

Resolved (2013.02.02.NG01), the New gTLD Program Committee directs the President and CEO to open a 30-day public comment forum on this topic, which should include a call for identification of proposed objective criteria to classify applied-for TLDs as "closed generic"

TLDs.

...

Resolved (2013.02.02.NG02), the New gTLD Program Committee directs the President and CEO to, concurrently with the opening of the public comment forum, request the GNSO to provide guidance on the issue of "closed generic" TLDs if the GNSO wishes to provide such guidance. Guidance on this issue is requested to be provided by the close of the public comment forum.

Resolved (2013.02.02.NG03), the New gTLD Program Committee directs the President and CEO to: - Summarize and analyze all comments submitted in the public comment

forum.

...

- Review materials supporting the policy development process resulting in the GNSO policy recommendations on the Introduction of New Generic Top-Level Domains and provide analysis of any discussions relating to the limitations on potential new gTLDs. - Analyze the feasibility of objectively classifying applied for TLDs as "closed generic" TLDs. - Provide an analysis as to whether the public interest and principles of international law are served by adopting a clear approach regarding 'closed generic' gTLDs. - Provide a report to the New gTLD Program Committee informed by the comments received and analysis conducted, including alternatives to addressing this issue.

_______________________________________________ GTLD-WG mailing list GTLD-WG@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gtld-wg

Working Group direct URL: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/New+GTLDs

-- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html

_______________________________________________ GTLD-WG mailing list GTLD-WG@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gtld-wg

Working Group direct URL: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/New+GTLDs

-- Evan Leibovitch Toronto Canada

Em: evan at telly dot org Sk: evanleibovitch Tw: el56 _______________________________________________ GTLD-WG mailing list GTLD-WG@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gtld-wg

Working Group direct URL: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/New+GTLDs