[ALAC] Closed generic statement

Rinalia Abdul Rahim rinalia.abdulrahim at gmail.com
Thu Feb 28 14:35:36 UTC 2013


A suggestion to address Carlton's concern (not a full solution, but a
partial one):

"We can foresee *There may be* innovative business models that might allow
a closed TLD to be in the public interest."

Also, another suggestion for the final sentence in last paragraph:  "Such
uses should not be excluded *as long as it can be established that they
serve the public interest*."

Best regards,


On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 10:04 PM, Alan Greenberg
<alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>wrote:

> Carlton, Evan and I worked very hard to craft a statement that we
> hoped a majority of the ALAC could support. Do you have any specific
> wording recommendations to change it to make it clearer or
> more  self-consistent?
> In response to your comments, I would suggest that the opening
> sentence read "On the whole, the ALAC does not believe that unlimited
> closed generics provide public benefit."
> Alan
> At 28/02/2013 07:50 AM, Carlton Samuels wrote:
> >The fundamental cannot be successfully refuted.  So let's look at
> >the other claim: the public interest is subverted.  The statement
> >itself does a good enough job to undermine that claim and shows up
> >the internal inconsistency of the logic utilised.
> >
> >I am asserting the evidence that supports this declaration that
> >closed generics are inimical to the public interest is well, weak,
> >at best.  All we can say for sure is that it tends to subvert the
> >existing business model.  And the evidence is right there in the
> statement!
> >
> >The first paragraph goes "On the whole, the ALAC does not believe
> >that closed generics provide public benefit".
> >
> >Then that is undermined by Paragraph 2: "We can foresee innovative
> >business models that might allow a closed TLD to be in the public
> >interest. An example might be a registry that makes 2nd level names
> >available at no cost to anyone, but retains legal control over them.
> >This is similar to the model used by Facebook and many blog hosting
> sites."
> >
> >This is the problem with the statement......"We can forseee".
> >"Forsee"!  It is projecting - projecting - an outcome with evidence
> >now available, slim as that is that mortally wounds the declaration
> >of the fist paragraph.
> >
> >-Carlton
> >
> >==============================
> >Carlton A Samuels
> >Mobile: 876-818-1799
> >Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround
> >=============================
> >
> >
> >On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 1:00 AM, Alan Greenberg
> ><<mailto:alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca> wrote:
> >At Tuesday's ALAC meeting, Evan presented a statement on closed
> >generic word domains that gave the two opposing positions that had
> >been expressed by various ALAC and At-Large people. I suggested that
> >the ALAC not vote for or against that statement, but each member say
> >with side they supported. As the discussion evolved, there was some
> >discomfort about simply giving a tally of the two sides, and
> >moreover, that it ignored a third option that allowed some parts of
> >both sides to be supported. I volunteered to work with Evan to create
> >a new version.
> >
> >I did create such a 3rd "in between" option. As we were reviewing it,
> >and partially guided by a message from Roberto Gaetano, Evan
> >suggested that this in-between option, with some enhancements, could
> >be a single statement that most or all of the ALAC could support.
> >
> >What you see here is an evolution of that statement. Thanks to
> >Olivier and Rinalia who identified a number of problems with earlier
> versions.
> >
> >The comment period closes on March 7th, so a vote will need to be
> >completed by March 6th. I believe that Olivier would like to start a
> >vote relatively quickly, so if you have any problems with what you
> >see here, please speak up quickly.
> >
> >This new statement is also posted on the wiki -
> ><https://community.icann.org/x/Z4JwAg>
> https://community.icann.org/x/Z4JwAg.
> >
> >Alan
> >
> >=================================
> >
> >On the whole, the ALAC does not believe that closed generics provide
> >public benefit and would prefer that TLDs -- especially for strings
> >representing categories -- were not allocated in a way that would
> >lock out broad access to sub-domains. Some members of At-Large
> >believe, on principle, that all closed generics are harmful to the
> >public good. Others believe that, while not necessarily being
> >beneficial to end users, closed gTLDs should be allowed as simply
> >being consistent with existing practise for lower-level domains.
> >
> >However, in developing this response to the Board's request, the ALAC
> >found the issue to be far more nuanced than the above hard positions
> >would suggest. We can foresee innovative business models that might
> >allow a closed TLD to be in the public interest. An example might be
> >a registry that makes 2nd level names available at no cost to anyone,
> >but retains legal control over them. This is similar to the model
> >used by Facebook and many blog hosting sites. Allowance should be
> >made for applicants interested in widespread sub-domain distribution
> >that do not require domain-name sales as a source of revenue, or for
> >other forms of sub-domain allocation.
> >
> >Whether a generic-word string is used with its generic meaning or in
> >some other context may also be relevant. The fictitious but famous
> >computer manufacturer, Orange Computers Inc. using the TLD ".orange"
> >might be acceptable, while the same string used as a closed TLD by a
> >California Orange Growers Cooperative (and not allowing access to
> >orange producers from Florida or Mediterranean and South American
> >countries) might well be considered unacceptable.
> >
> >Allowing this nuanced approach would likely involve a case by case
> >review of how a TLD will be used and how its sub-domains will be
> >allocated. Moreover, it would require a contractual commitment to not
> >change that model once the TLD is delegated.
> >
> >In summary, the ALAC believes that completely uncontrolled use of
> >generic words as TLDs is not something that ICANN should be
> >supporting. However, some instances of generic word TLDs could be
> >both reasonable and have very strong benefits of just the sort that
> >ICANN was seeking when the TLD space was opened. Such uses should not
> >be excluded.
> >
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >ALAC mailing list
> ><mailto:ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org>ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> >https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
> >
> >At-Large Online: <http://www.atlarge.icann.org>
> http://www.atlarge.icann.org
> >ALAC Working Wiki:
> ><
> https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)
> >
> https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)
> >
> _______________________________________________
> ALAC mailing list
> ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
> At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org
> ALAC Working Wiki:
> https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)

More information about the ALAC mailing list