Re: [gtld-council] Regarding non-commercial interests in the gTLD market
- To: gtld-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: [gtld-council] Regarding non-commercial interests in the gTLD market
- From: Mawaki Chango <ki_chango@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2007 12:32:09 -0700 (PDT)
--- Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On the freedom of speech argument - there is no direct
> between non-commercial organisations and freedom of speech
> they are
> different concepts. Commercial organisations that support
> freedom of
> speech may outnumber non-commercial :-)
Then it makes perfect sense to agree to NCUC's proposed
amendment to Recom.3, doesn't it?
NCUC proposed version" "...The process for introducing new gTLDs
must make proper allowance for third party rights, including
trademark and freedom of expression rights..."
After all, as Robin rightly questions on behalf of NCUC, why be
concerned of only a specific set of rights here? Provisions like
this seem to "annex" the Internet name policy to a particular
group of stakeholders. Trademark rights are not universal, or
how would you say that, across borders. The court cases that
Robin cited seem to me to match what I know from the French
system to be the notion of "class" for trademarks. E.g.,
"Bordelais" is or may be a trademark (I haven't checked the
records but the name is famous enough as AOC "appelation
d'origine controllée") in the world of wines & "spiritueux"
(class). But the world can still be used in another category (or
class) or activities, for other purposes than qualifyng a
certain quality of alcohol. So it is a concept that limit
trademark rights to specific domains, making the name available
for other purposes, including controversial speeches about the
trademark as the US court cases show.
In other words, by just singling out the need the need to
protect trademarks against corresponding domain name
registration, we are taking the risk to collapse the Internet
domain name space ad the trademark domains of rights, ultimately
equating the value of a domain name to that of a trademark.
That is a possibility (and I'm aware it's a historical shift
that has been happening in the governance of the Internet), but
it certainly not a neutral choice - as neutral as one could