Q34: Has the inventory of useful and available domain names reached an unacceptably
low level?Yes.
Q35: Assuming it is important to increase the inventory of available
domain names, should that be done by adding TLDs that are not differentiated from
the present ones?
That is for the registry applicants to decide.
Q37: What measures
should be employed to encourage or require that a sponsoring organization is appropriately
representative of the TLD's intended stakeholders?
ICANN is not in a position to
determine who is and is not "representative" of the millions of different “stakeholder”
groups in the world. This is “mission creep” with a vengeance. Re-read the White
Paper. The only workable policy is to allow dissatisfied groups to start their own
TLDs.
Q38: In cases where sponsoring organizations are appointed, what measures
should be established to ensure that the interests of the global Internet community
are served in the operation of the TLD?
Other than interoperability and technical
stability issues, it is not clear to me why "the global Internet community" (whatever
that is) has any interest in the operation of a specific TLD. Put differently, the
registration of a name in a SLD is not subject to the approval of the "global Internet
community." It is a simple assignment process and market transaction. Any attempt
to make it something more than that would be a stifling restriction on the freedom
of the Internet. The same is true of TLDs.
Q39: How should global policy requirements
(adherence to a TLD's charter, requirements of representativeness, interoperability
requirements, etc.) be enforced?
See answer to Q 28 above. ICANN should not get
into the business of approving and enforcing registry policies.
Q40: Are there
any types of new TLDs that should not be included in the initial introduction? If
any types should be excluded, why?
No. Let a thousand flowers bloom.
Q41: Does
the start up of a new TLD pose additional risks to intellectual property rights that
warrant additional protections?
No. The legal and UDRP precedents are clear and
eliminate the economic basis for cybersquatting. Cybersquatters stand to gain nothing
by registering trademarked names in new TLDs. Of course there will be good-faith
disputes and borderline cases, as there are now. Currently, trademark-disputed registrations
are filed at a rate approximately 0.000269 of monthly domain name registrations.
The rate of bad faith registrations is likely to be lower in a new TLD than in an
old, established one such as dot com, because the value of names in those spaces
is likely to be less certain. If anything, over the long term as new TLDs are added
they will gradually reduce the risk to intellectual property by undercutting the
artificial economic value of specific SLDs.
Q42: Should the protections afforded
intellectual property in the start-up phase of new TLDs differ depending on the type
of TLD?
Ideally, protections, if any, should be the same in all TLDs. But if ICANN
adopts some boneheaded scheme like Sunrise +20, then non-commercial TLDs should be
exempted from it.
Q43: Is the availability of the UDRP and court proceedings as
remedies for violations of enforceable legal rights an appropriate element of protection
of intellectual-property rights that should apply to all new TLDs? Are there any
other protections that should be made available in all new TLDs, regardless of their
type?
The UDRP has proven to be quick and inexpensive; if anything it is biased
toward trademark holders because it gives complainants a choice of dispute resolution
service provider. No other protections are needed.
Q45: What mechanisms for start
up of a new TLD should be followed to ensure that all persons receive a fair chance
to obtain registrations?
Let registries propose their own methods. This is outside
ICANN's scope.
Q46: Is exclusion of names appearing on a globally famous trademark
list a workable method of protecting such marks from infringement at the present
time? Would an exclusion mechanism be approprate in the future?
This question has
been answered by Working Group B. The answer was No.
Q47: Should introduction of
new TLDs await completion of an evaluation of the operation of the UDRP and be subject
to a finding that the UDRP has been successful in meeting its objectives?
No.
This is a transparent delaying tactic proposed by interests who do not want any new
TLDs. Even the DNSO IP constituency has publicly stated that the UDRP is protecting
IP interests sufficiently.
Q48: Should introduction of new TLDs await extension
of the UDRP to cover claims for transfer of domain names based on the relevance of
a well-known trademark to a chartered gTLD? How long would implementing such a revision
to the UDRP likely take?
No. Such a policy presumes that domain names are users'
primary means of navigating the net (they are not) and that the semantic structure
of the domain name space is to be driven by trademark concerns. Such policies perpetuate
the valorization of domain names, which makes them flashpoints for economic and political
conflict. DNS policy will never be rational and stable until they are relegated to
the status of unique identifiers with mnemonic qualities. Further modification of
the UDRP along the lines suggested above perpetuates the underlying problems.
Introduction
of new TLDs has been waiting for five years. Enough is enough.