[Gnso-newgtld-wg] Brief Paper - Closed Generic Viewpoint

[Alexander Schubert]

Hi Kurt,The submitted document is a good summary of the "no strings attached" fraction here in the WG. If I may condense:The original PDP & AGB included no constraints or regulations on closed generics.The only reason why closed generics were rejected in 2012 (and are subsequently now subject to debate) is GAC advice. If a certain generic term based .com (e.g. "book.com") is taken then there is an infinite amount of other strings available that could serve as SLD under .com; the same must be true for a top-level identifyer; e.g. (working off of therausus) instead of ".book" registrants could choose domains in the gTLDs:.publication .text.title.writingAny applicant could also do like Amazon and simply use ".nile" or ".mekong" instead ".book"; because AMAZON sells books via amazon.com!A "public interest" test is impossible to implement and introduces cost, complication and uncertainty.Closed generic term based gTLDs have the greatest potential for innovation - but even if no innovation happens: no harm done.I guess we are past the stage of "shooting holes" into policy suggestions. I would just like to mention:Yes!Thanks GAC!Naming choice & rules in SLDs under the monopolistic .com gTLD are completely incomparable to the naming choice of gTLD strings. It's comparing apples and ducks. Two different universes with incomparable dynamics. I say that as someone who was a domainer since 23 years (not anymore; I changed camp) and is actively creating new gTLDs since 15 years. Conflation of "Brand" vs. generic gTLD. This is comparing apples and solar solstices. An opinion. This is the main issue: there is an expectation that (driven by consultants) corporations claim their category keyword gTLDs - just to own them. Then they might or might not think about innovation. But as I said: we are probably past the "discussion stage": we exchanged these same bullet points forth and back for years.We as GNSO WG need to sample policy suggestions; then let the Internet Community decide between the choices as this WG will not come up with consensus on any of the single suggested versions. So far it seems we have three policy suggestion camps ("clouds"):An unfiltered approach to closed TLDs; were anybody can apply for any string as closed gTLD:Generic keywords (".book")Brands (Spec 13 would be eliminated in that model, right?)Geo terms (e.g. ".shanghai")An approach where the public benefit that is suggested in the gTLD operation plan is outweighing the fact that the public can't register domains.I am not singling out any concrete policy version. Implementation will have to be worked on.None of the above is satisfactory - therefore until an appropriate policy advice is being created closed gTLDs remain confined to SPEC 13 brand TLDs.A word to Spec13 Brand TLDs:If any string could be operated as closed gTLD: wouldn't then the entire class (and the related policies) of SPEC13 Brand gTLD be superfluous? If we do not lift all restrictions around closed generic gTLDs (hence keep SPEC13):How to prevent that closed generics are being introduced as SPEC13 registry? I register a TM "BOOK" (or buy a used one; there are two live TMs "BOOK" at USPTO right now; and there are many more globally) apply for .book as SPEC13 Brand gTLD - then do my "innovative thing"? E.g. give "accounts" (not domains) to clients - and route accountname.book to their presence that is hosted on my servers (similar to a FB page presence; or ebay store)? I don't give them the domain or access to nameservers - they apply for an account name - get an online service of whatever kind (store, social media account, heart tracker app account) - and I as registry route accountname.closedTLD to their account presence on my servers!Alexander Sent from my Samsung device

-------- Original message --------
From: Kurt Pritz <kurt at kjpritz.com> 
Date: 7/25/20  00:13  (GMT+02:00) 
To: gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org 
Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Brief Paper - Closed Generic Viewpoint 

Hi Everyone: Marc Trachtenberg, Mike Rodenbaugh and I have combined to develop the attached paper describing our position on the delegation of closed-generic TLDs. While Paul McGrady generally agrees with the document, he is travelling and couldn’t dedicate sufficient attention to the document to formally sign on to it.This is not meant as a response to the paper recently offered, “A Proposal for Public Interest Closed Generic gTLDs,” but was developed in parallel and meant to be considered on its own. As always, this is not as complete, succinct, and clear as we would like it to be and would be pleased to discuss the thinking behind it in any forum. We hope you find it meaningful. Thanks in advance for any time devoted to reading it. Sincerely,Kurt, Marc, Mike_______________________________________________Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing listGnso-newgtld-wg at icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg_______________________________________________By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/attachments/20200725/cb7d9365/attachment.html>