Re: [ga] Trademark-free TLDs

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Chris and all former DNSO GA members or other interested stakeholders/users,

I will respond in line this time around to Chris's remarks/responses..

kidsearch wrote:

> Exactly on point, Jeff. That is why either category-specific tlds based on
> either the phone book method or the USPTO catagory method would be better IF
> ICANN is to be the entity that chooses which tlds are to be allocated.

What you refer to as "category-specific tlds" are sTLD's or special TLD's.
And there is nothing worng with some or allot of those being added to the
root structure.  But not only "category-specific tlds"/sTLD's should be
added or given preference.  FCFS should be the rule, and ICANN
should not as an entity, have any say so as to which TLD's regardless
of type, be added or how many in what time frame either...

>
>
> My 1st preference: ICANN simply act as uber-registry for tlds, allowing
> companies to choose the tld they want to manage, register it with ICANN if
> it is not already taken, then market their domain names at whatever price
> they choose. The market, through competition will keep the price down.

This is our members much preferred method, and I believe the only method
that would meet free trade regulations and law.

>
>
> My 2nd preference: ICANN put up for allocation tlds that reflect all major
> categories of trademark you can register. 1 tld per tm category. WIPO should
> adjust the UDRP at that point to reflect that your domain name is protected
> by your trademark ONLY if you register the domain name in the tld that
> reflects the same USPTO category.

No category's from the USPTO are assigned or determined for TLD's but
there is a "Class" for Domain names.
The problem with this method is that it cannot meet the free trade regulation
of existing law in the US and other countries.

>
>
> My 3rd preference: ICANN put up for allocation tlds that reflect the
> categories in phone books, making it easier for people to understand what
> type of websites might be found on a specific tld. This would also have the
> effect of limiting trademark protection to those that register a domain name
> in the same category they would place an ad in the yellow pages under.

I personally don't see any thing wrong with this as ONE of several methods
that could be done and has viable use as well has self marketing aspects.

>
>
> Which of those 3, or another option do others here prefer? We don't have a
> voting booth anymore, but would like to hear from everyone who reads this
> list as to what their preference is and if possible, a short explanation as
> to why they like one particular method.
>
> Once all ideas are presented and added to the three I mentioned here, then
> it would be enlightening to see everyone put them in an order of preference.

Agreed!

>
>
> Chris McElroy
> http://www.newsandmediablog.com
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jeff Williams" <jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: "Karl Auerbach" <karl@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: "Danny Younger" <dannyyounger@xxxxxxxxx>; <ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Monday, January 16, 2006 3:37 AM
> Subject: Re: [ga] Trademark-free TLDs
>
> > Karl and all former DNSO GA members or other interested
> stakeholders/users.
> >
> > As the USPTO has some time ago now added classes for domain
> > names to be trademarked, the concept of a "Trademark-free"
> > TLD is a nearly pointless argument unless one wishes to challenge
> > the USPTO in respect to restraint of trade as to that class of mark
> > as being in conflict with current trade policy and law.
> >
> > Arguing such here on this forum, as has been done before, will
> > not now or anytime in the near future, prompt ICANN or DOC/NTIA,
> > or for that matter any other country whom has recently signed the
> > FTA's with the US to negate or abandon recognizing that USPTO
> > class of TM.
> >
> > Karl Auerbach wrote:
> >
> > > On Sat, 14 Jan 2006, Danny Younger wrote:
> > >
> > > > Under the present system that provides Sunrise
> > > > opportunities for trademark holders you would never be
> > > > able to secure hummer.tld for yourself as it would be
> > > > snatched up long before you got to the Land Rush.
> > >
> > > And it is precisely that history of ICANN prejudice in favor of
> trademark
> > > and an equal prejudice against other rights to use a name that we ought
> to
> > > be rejecting flatly and clearly and without euphemism or equivocation.
> > >
> > > Eventually somebody is finally going to realize that ICANN has no
> > > authority to enact a law of trademark uber alles and the fact that it
> has
> > > been able impose one because of its singular position will be questioned
> > > as a form of restraint of trade.
> > >
> > > There's no reason to hop onto ICANN's turnip truck and accept the
> > > unacceptable.
> > >
> > > >  I agree that a "reservation" approach is less than optimum, but
> remain
> > > > convinced that most TLD applicants will continue to kowtow to
> > > > intellectual property interests in order to maximize their chances of
> > > > obtaining the coveted TLD.
> > >
> > > Just because some people are willing to be servile does not mean that we
> > > should sacrifice principle.  We have already been pushed to the wall, we
> > > have nothing to lose by standing on principle and saying "this shall not
> > > pass."
> > >
> > > > This is a consequence of the beauty contest approach which will
> > > > necessarily prevail unless the Board can be convinced to pursue an
> > > > auction approach.  Yes, I know that Mike Palage has indicated that the
> > > > ICANN Staff is keen on auctions, but I have yet to see support for
> that
> > > > approach throughout the GNSO constituencies.
> > >
> > > You should have heard the disussions about auctions during the famous
> > > closed board dinners.  Even during my term there were those who were
> > > absolutely, totally, and utterly against auctions, and some of those are
> > > still on the board.
> > >
> > >                 --karl--
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > --
> > Jeffrey A. Williams
> > Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 134k members/stakeholders strong!)
> > "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" -
> >    Abraham Lincoln
> >
> > "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is
> > very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt
> >
> > "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B;
> > liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by
> > P: i.e., whether B is less than PL."
> > United States v. Carroll Towing  (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947]
> > ===============================================================
> > Updated 1/26/04
> > CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security
> > IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng.  INEG. INC.
> > ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402
> > E-Mail jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >  Registered Email addr with the USPS
> > Contact Number: 214-244-4827
> >
> >
> >

Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 134k members/stakeholders strong!)
"Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" -
   Abraham Lincoln

"Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is
very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt

"If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B;
liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by
P: i.e., whether B is less than PL."
United States v. Carroll Towing  (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947]
===============================================================
Updated 1/26/04
CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security
IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng.  INEG. INC.
ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402
E-Mail jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
 Registered Email addr with the USPS
Contact Number: 214-244-4827