[Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2] Agenda for WT2 Meeting 13 April 2017 at 21:00 UTC
Kathy Kleiman
kathy at kathykleiman.com
Thu Apr 13 15:28:07 UTC 2017
https://www.internetnews.me/2013/02/23/5-reasons-why-closed-generic-new-gtlds-should-be-opposed/
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-namespaces/>
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-87816.html>
Others have spoken out on this topic also:
* Kathy Kleiman to ICANN
<http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/program-status/correspondence/kleiman-to-icann-25sep12-en.pdf>
* Microsoft to ICANN
<http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/program-status/correspondence/pangborn-to-crocker-et-al-31jan13-en.pdf>
* Dave Winer
<http://scriptingecho.wordpress.com/2012/06/15/tech-press-misses-googleamazon-name-grab/>
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-chehade-et-al-24sep12-en.pdf
>
> http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/program-status/correspondence/neylon-et-al-to-chalaby-et-al-22jan13-en.pdf
>
>
> 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-should-be-opposed/
>
> 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 at brightsconsulting.com
>> <mailto:flemming at 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 at icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2/attachments/20170413/b83c9fb1/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2
mailing list