Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] call for agenda items -- 5-July call

[Eric Brunner-Williams <ebw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Jothan,

While our charter is just VI policy development for new gTLDs, if we 
were making the smallest rule to remove the largest opposition to any 
new gTLDs, it would be sensible to consider an absolute ban on the 
registration of marks of any kind in standard registries and 
limitations to community-based registries of marks held by members of 
the respective communities.
Rules that leave .com unchanged, and don't encourage the .com-ization 
of new gTLDs, seem at least as attractive as rules that leave .com 
unchanged and are indifferent to, or encourage, the .com-ization of 
new gTLDs.
Imagine never having to read another "kill all the kittens" letter 
from the International Olympic Committee or the Bank of America or any 
of the other corporate idiots. All we'd have left would be the job 
security seeking white collar welfare types whining about security and 
child porn and cyber war and ... "decency and morality".
You are correct to point to the size of the bribe sought, but we get 
more bang for the buck if we forgo Sunrise all together -- at an 
indefinite offset into the unbounded future, and can start more 
offering choices to DNS users.
Marks stay in CNOBIEu... Verisign should be happy. The IPC should be 
happy. The USG should be happy. Domainers should be happy. A few sharp 
guyz and galz should be unhappy, which should make the Board happy...
So I understand the motivation, but it is really a bribe to covertly 
develop a IPC blue plate special and call it competition policy.
Have a nice weekend, it was nice seeing you again in Bruxelles.

Eric

On 7/2/10 8:10 PM, Jothan Frakes wrote:
> Eric-
>
> Although I agree with you and your message that there are more things
> to resolve than to focus on SR, I think that we can't pause it because
> SR solutions, at very least for brands, has to be sorted in the whole
> process so that brands who are shifting from ""destroy" to "resist"
> and on their way to "apply" as a stance on new TLDs don't revert back
> to their first mode and crush the momentum it seems like we have from
> the board and community on new TLDs.
>
> I am not suggesting in any way that ONLY brands deserve SR.  I am
> suggesting that there should be some way forward for brands to see a
> compatibility with their models (vis a vis SR) as a product of our
> efforts.
>
> Additionally, there are interdependances that need to remain in focus
> with how an SR scenario would fit in within the framework of other
> exceptions to Board/DAGv3 this group produces.
>
> -Jothan
>
> Jothan Frakes
> +1.206-355-0230 tel
> +1.206-201-6881 fax
>
>
> On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 4:02 PM, Eric Brunner-Williams
> <ebw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:ebw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
>
>
>
>         anything else on your minds that you'd like included in the
>         agenda?
>
>
>     Well, I for one would like dropping the SR nonsense into a deep
>     hole until after we've succeeded in solving non-edge cases like
>     whether we're going to eliminate all current registries, or
>     eliminate all current registrars, from all real application types,
>     or simply sprinkle magic pixie dust on all things integrated and
>     wonderful and let Dog, the Market, and a historically
>     under-resourced compliance function sort out what might benefit
>     the consumers, if we could differentiate the few new gTLD
>     consumers from the 100 million or so legacy gTLD consumers.
>
>     Eric