>In other words, I might reach an
agreement with cases.com whereby they link to my cases.web site, in return for a
percentage of sales which come from consumers who click through to my site.<
fact, I think that should be used far more often as a solution to domain squabbles.
A link saying something like: 'if you came to whatever.com looking for whatever.org
click here'. The wheels of commerce shouldn't grind to a halt because of one additional
mouseclick. Paying the other site for that, perhaps along the lines of an affiliate
program, is better still, but even doing it gratis is just good neighborliness.
well, in the suggestion of closed domains for TM holders along the lines of .airline,
while there wouldn't normally be conflicting names, there are examples like ABC TV
of America and Australia. If there is a .media or .broadcast (.tv wouldn't be named
by ICANN for that), then abc.media or abc.media.reg could be a basic web page saying:
this abc, click here for this other abc,
With site one being american.abc.media etc or abc.ny.ny.reg.us. or whatever
(that would be transparent to the end user once there). Again not a major bar to
international commerce. It is after all the way the web works.
>Within the next
few years, I predict that the courts will set clear precedents concerning domain
name holders' rights to use names which do not infringe on any party's trademarks.<
agree with you, but a few years is a long time for people to be inconvenienced.
of my clients hold federal and/or California trademarks, and their rights should
I see so many plusses and no obvious negatives for a .reg (and/or
a series of closed industry specific domains) for businesses big and small, I can't
imagine why they wouldn't want it. I have yet to see a decent argument against it,
here or elsewhere. It also isn't a new suggestion, if ICANN doesn't adopt it I hope
that they will be clear about why they are not doing so.