Re: [ga] Trademark-free TLDs

["kidsearch" <kidsearch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I also will post below to the comments made by Jeff.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Jeff Williams" <jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "kidsearch" <kidsearch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; "ICANN new-gtlds"
<new-gtlds-pdp-comments@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: <ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; "vinton g. cerf" <vint@xxxxxxxxxx>; "ICANN BC list"
<BClist@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; "icann board address" <icann-board@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2006 4:40 AM
Subject: Re: [ga] Trademark-free TLDs


> 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...

I agree. I set no limits to the number or type of tlds to be introduced.
What I really want to see is that ICANN not interfere in the creation of new
tlds, except to insure that technical requirements are met.

>
> >
> >
> > 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.

Again, we agree here.

>
> >
> >
> > 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.

Which they are not doing currently anyway. This was posted as a backup plan
if they continue to refuse to open up the market for tld creation
altogether.

>
> >
> >
> > 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.

They claim that this would somehow confuse users who currently have a solid
grasp of phone books offline. I fail to see where they think an online phone
book approach would be more confusing than the offline version that sits by
their telephone.

>
> >
> >
> > 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
>
>
>