<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
IRT draft report comments
- To: irtp-draft-report@xxxxxxxxx
- Subject: IRT draft report comments
- From: Dan Schindler <dan@xxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 6 May 2009 19:51:29 -0700
<html><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space;
-webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><!--StartFragment--><p
class="MsoNormal">Dear Sirs,</p><p class="MsoNormal">We write further to the
published draft IRT report and thank
you for the opportunity to comment. We would also like to state that we truly
believe there are many sound recommendations proposed.</p><p
class="MsoNormal">That said, we have a few concerns we would like to
share:</p><p class="MsoNormal">Firstly, we do not believe that the "<b>Globally
Protected Marks
List"</b> is a sound option, rather a utopian proposal that would not work in
reality. In fact, it is our opinion, as a Registry of fifteen years standing,
that it will be burdensome and cause many more problems than it would solve.
</p><p class="MsoNormal">Maybe we have misunderstood the intention, but it
reads to
us that generic names can get on the list. For example, TIME. How can the brand
holder for Time be entitled to time.everything at the 2<sup>nd</sup> -level, or
given preferential treatment over any legitimate prospective registrant of this
generic word, that their actual trademark most certainly would not cover?</p><p
class="MsoNormal">We also feel that that this proposal will cause umbrage with
brand-holders who don’t quite meet the barometer set in this draft, and which
propose a different set of rules than already established in the existing
top-level spaces. </p><p class="MsoNormal">Furthermore, we consider the list
proposal, “a sledgehammer
to crack a nut,” especially in terms of the costs compared to the usefulness
and accuracy of such a list, and seems to want to substitute long-standing
intellectual
property legislation and doesn’t seem to add much value. Conversely, it will
cost significantly to others.</p><p class="MsoNormal">In closing this topic, I
hope I will be forgiven for saying
that a minority part of our community has long since proposed the ‘list’ notion
and consistently failed to deliver evidence of practicality.</p><p
class="MsoNormal">We now comment relating to the proposal that all Registries
be <b>“thick”</b>.</p><p class="MsoNormal">Our Registry has been thick since we
started 15 years ago
but we don’t think it is “essential” today, as stated in the draft, for the
following reasons, including the fact that a Whois Task Force set up by ICANN
did not conclude that thick registries should be mandatory and it was never
required for previous applications.</p><p class="MsoNormal">Thirdly, we
understand that Registrars will be required to
escrow data. Doesn’t this mean that keeping this data at the registry level is
unnecessary? And whilst on the subject of Registrars, I’m sure they will see $
signs in selling ‘whois protect’ type services.</p><p class="MsoNormal">So,
whilst “thick” is OK in our minds, we don’t see it as
“essential”.</p><p class="MsoNormal">Our last comment relates to the
<b>“Uniform Rapid Suspension
System”</b>.</p><p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-pagination:
none;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none"><span
style="mso-bidi-font-size:
15.0pt;mso-bidi-font-family:Calibri">In our opinion this is the best solution
offered, but surely this only needs to be for domains that are in use with a
resolving website and, consequently, where actual infringement is occurring?
Additionally,
we belive the URS will only be abused if it is too cheap. It should be hundreds
of dollars.</span><span style="mso-bidi-font-size:16.0pt;mso-bidi-font-family:
"Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-pagination:
none;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none"><span
style="mso-bidi-font-size:
15.0pt;mso-bidi-font-family:Calibri">In closing, we feel it is important to the
community, the
continuing development of the Internet and to ensure no further loss of
credibility, that nothing is put in the way of ensuring the very speediest
opening of the application window. If we wait for perfect solutions to issues
we will never see new gTLDs, just like we would never have seen the Internet
etc.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-pagination:
none;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none">Assuring you of our very
best intentions at all times,</p><p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-pagination:
none;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none">Regards,</p><p
class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-pagination:
none;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none">Dan</p><p
class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-pagination:
none;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none">Daniel M Schindler</p><p
class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-pagination:
none;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none"><br></p>
<!--EndFragment-->
<br><br><div> <span><img height="396" width="462"
src="cid:F40557F3-34FF-4A4D-9375-466BFE36D284@gateway.2wire.net"></span>
</div><br></body></html> 
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|