[GTLD-WG] Workspace on the Issue of Private Ownership of Common Words as TLDs
evan at telly.org
Tue Nov 13 23:48:02 UTC 2012
On 13 November 2012 17:08, Michele Neylon :: Blacknight <
michele at blacknight.com> wrote:
> There's a bit of a difference between a string having certain criteria
> associated with registration ie. .museum or .aero are "open" to any entity
> that meets the criteria
"that meets the criteria" could also mean an publisher or Amazon bookseller
See, now we're playing around with re-definitions of "open" in order to
suit the difficulties in the argument. Even creating mushy middle-grounds
such as "semi-open" (I prefer "ajar").
It's a mess, and we don't really know what plans the "closed" guys have for
allocating sub-domains. The only thing we do know about the closed ones is
that they won't follow the registrar/reseller distribution model, and IMO
(sorry Michele) healthy competition with that model is good from a
public-interest PoV. I am not convinced that "private" TLDs will be devoid
of public participation, yet that belief is the source of speculative
threats that IMO constitute more FUD than fact.
> However if a Google or Amazon closed generic was launched, based on the
> applications they've submitted, then no other entities would be able to
> register domains in that namespace except for Google / Amazon.
They can't *sell* domains. But then, these are companies that have other
business models. Google gives away Gmail and Google Docs. Amazon subsidizes
every Kindle sold.
I see no valid reason to deny such opportunity to innovate in TLD space.
It's not like "open" TLD competition won't exist for potential registrants.
More information about the GTLD-WG