RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] SRSU

[Milton L Mueller <mueller@xxxxxxx>]

> The SRSU concept is just an attempt at mis-direction by the IPC. Too
> bad that even the NCSG seems to be falling for it. Why should certain
> strings be carved out for so-called TM or brand owners and special
> exception?

It's not misdirection. It's a long-overdue capability for major organizations 
to own and operate their own name space. Its makes perfect sense for NCSG and 
CSG to be on the same side on this.

SRSU is not really an exception for TM owners or brand owners per se. It's an 
exception for Single Registrants. They deserve an exception because they are 
not in the business of selling second-level domains for a living, and all of 
ICANN's contracts and policies regarding TLD delegees are based on the 
assumption that one is selling second-level domains. 


> Why should Apple or Cannon get exceptions and Sport, Web, or Jones not?

Apple or Canon get exceptions because they are SRSU. Simple.

> On top of this, we are looking at another round of IP interests
> lobbying the heck out of ICANN for even *better* or *stricter* TM protection
> mechanisms because they aren't happy with what they already got.

I don't see the justice in this accusation. And believe me, I am more than 
willing to fight unreasonable TM demands. Quite the opposite, in this case if 
brand owners can own and manage their own name space it may reduce the pressure 
on the rest of the space. If consumers come to associate .brand domains with 
the actual brand holder then some (of course, not all) of the confusion and 
potential for cybersquatting would be reduced.