[GTLD-WG] Workspace on the Issue of Private Ownership of Common Words as TLDs

Michele Neylon :: Blacknight michele at blacknight.com
Wed Nov 14 00:32:50 UTC 2012


Avri

On 14 Nov 2012, at 00:23, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org>
 wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> <with WG chair hat off>
> 
> I tend to support this view

I know, but you also know that I, and others, don't

> 
> I beleive that we knew there would be this sort of application in the GNSO when we were coming up with the policy.    And no one considered it a problem, at least not that I noticed - and since as g-council chair I was looking for the consensus point for the recommendations, I think I would have noticed.  We also discussed it during Vertical Integration (VI) WG as one of the case studies, the singe user model, and I do not think anyone objected to the model qua the model.

I don't have any issue with the single registrant concept per se. However I feel that this was envisaged primarily to cater for .trademark eg. .bmw or, if we'd wanted to spend the money, .blacknight
I don't think the idea of .beauty being tied up by a single company for their own internal use was envisaged.

> 
> I do not see how this affects the Registry/Registrar model.  In order to use second level names, even internally, they need to be registered by a registrar.  With the VI decision, that registrar can be the registry itself as long as it signs the RAA and pays the fees.  Of course, they need to allow any registrar that meets their conditions for registering the names, to register them - not that I expect there would be many takers for such internal registrations, but depending on the services a registrar offered, one never knows.  I do not think we should deviate from this model just because someone decides to use the single user model.  They should have to live by the same rules as any registry with regard to the registration of second level names by RAA registrars

I don't disagree. 
> 
> But, I see no basis for baring the single use business model.

Please see above. 


> 
> <with chair hat back on>
> 
> I think the issue is one where we should record the various positions on both sides of the argument.  We should then see if we can get rough consensus for some action/statement.  And as mentioned during yesterday's WG call, we should include those who commented on the issue for the ANgRG in any discussions.  
> 
> I look forward to the first version of the write up
> 
> cheers
> 
> avri
> 
> 
> On 13 Nov 2012, at 18:58, Michele Neylon :: Blacknight wrote:
> 
>> Evan
>> 
>> We could go around and around on this for hours :) While it's fun, it's pointless
>> 
>> My views of this, and those of others, are public
>> 
>> See: 
>> 
>> http://www.internetnews.me/2012/06/14/big-brands-trying-to-corner-generic-namespaces/
>> 
>> http://blog.blacknight.com/letter-to-icann-on-big-brands-proposed-usage-of-generic-domain-extensions.html
>> 
>> As well as those of Kathy Kleiman, Steve del Bianco and others during the public forum:
>> 
>> http://www.fhhlaw.com/TorontoPublicForumPresentationsonClosedGenericTLDConcerns.pdf
>> 
>> and, though you may not believe me on this point, my views on this have very little to do with my position as a registrar :)
>> 
>> See also https://www.icann.org/en/news/correspondence/kleiman-to-icann-25sep12-en
>> 
>> Regards
>> 
>> Michele
>> 
>> 
>> On 13 Nov 2012, at 23:48, Evan Leibovitch <evan at telly.org>
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> 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 for .book
>>> 
>>> 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.
>>> 
>>> - Evan
>> 
>> --
>> Mr Michele Neylon
>> Blacknight Solutions
>> Hosting & Colocation, Brand Protection
>> http://www.blacknight.com/
>> http://blog.blacknight.com/
>> http://mneylon.tel/
>> Intl. +353 (0) 59  9183072
>> Locall: 1850 929 929
>> Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090
>> Fax. +353 (0) 1 4811 763
>> Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon
>> -------------------------------
>> Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty
>> Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland  Company No.: 370845
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> GTLD-WG mailing list
>> GTLD-WG at 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
>> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> GTLD-WG mailing list
> GTLD-WG at 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

--
Mr Michele Neylon
Blacknight Solutions
Hosting & Colocation, Brand Protection
http://www.blacknight.com/
http://blog.blacknight.com/
http://mneylon.tel/
Intl. +353 (0) 59  9183072
Locall: 1850 929 929
Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090
Fax. +353 (0) 1 4811 763
Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon
-------------------------------
Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty
Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland  Company No.: 370845




More information about the GTLD-WG mailing list