[ALAC] Closed generic statement

[Alan Greenberg]

Isn't that what we are saying in the summary paragraph?

Alan

At 28/02/2013 10:01 AM, Carlton Samuels wrote:
>Why not just "We are wary that depending on the business model that 
>is activated, closed generics may not advance the public 
>interest.  However, from the evidence of existing business 
>frameworks like Facebook and some blog platforms, innovations yet 
>unknown may in fact deliver public benefits. Absent hard evidence, 
>we are therefore unwilling to support a blanket disapproval of the category."
>
>-Carlton
>
>==============================
>Carlton A Samuels
>Mobile: 876-818-1799
>Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround
>=============================
>
>
>On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 9:04 AM, Alan Greenberg 
><<mailto:alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>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: <tel:876-818-1799>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) 
>>