RE: [gtld-council] Regarding non-commercial interests in the gTLD market
- To: "Mawaki Chango" <ki_chango@xxxxxxxxx>, <gtld-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [gtld-council] Regarding non-commercial interests in the gTLD market
- From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2007 16:09:04 -0400
I personally think I am okay with the NCUC recommendation in this regard
although I wonder whether it would be better to shorten the recommendation as
follows: "...The process for introducing new gTLDs must make proper allowance
for third party rights." Why limit ourselves to just two categories of rights?
"This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to which it
is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and
exempt from disclosure under applicable law. Any unauthorized use,
distribution, or disclosure is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
message in error, please notify sender immediately and destroy/delete the
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gtld-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:owner-gtld-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Mawaki Chango
> Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2007 3:32 PM
> To: gtld-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [gtld-council] Regarding non-commercial
> interests in the gTLD market
> --- Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On the freedom of speech argument - there is no direct correlation
> > 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 expect.