Part II Q25: Is increasing
the utility of the DNS as a resource-location tool an appropriate goal in the introduction
of new TLDs?
No, especially if this implies restrictive use and further trademark
conflicts.
Q27: If so, are there ways of accommodating the goal of enhancing registry-level
competition with the goal of enhancing the utility of the DNS?
No, unnecessary.
Q28:
Is the concept of TLD "charters" helpful in promoting the appropriate evolution of
the DNS?
No, unnecessary. Except that no 2 digit gtlds should be introduced, if
ever possible, because the could be mixed up with cctlds (ISO-3166) by the user.
Q29: Are the first three principles outlined in the second additional consensus
point of WG-C's 17 April 2000 supplemental report (quoted above) appropriate criteria
for selecting TLDs to be introduced in the first group?
They are appropriate criteria
for selecting among competing, mutually exclusive applications for TLD string assignments.
;-) (cit. Dr. Mueller)
Q30: Do those principles preclude the introduction of any
new fully open TLDs?
No
Q32: Should chartered TLDs be introduced according to
a pre-defined system, or should proposals be evaluated on an individualized basis?
Maybe
according to a first-come-first-serve system with the request to prove being technically
and financially able to keep the registry running.
Q34: Has the inventory of useful
and available domain names reached an unacceptably low level?
Just recently: 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?
Yes
and no. Both types should be introduced: Open and restricted gtlds.
Q36: Should
the formulation of policies for limited-purpose TLDs be delegated to sponsoring organizations?
In all cases or only in some?
Just leave it to the first person asking for the
admission as a .xyz plus .rxyz registry, if he is able to really run it.
Q37: What
measures should be employed to encourage or require that a sponsoring organization
is appropriately representative of the TLD's intended stakeholders?
None.
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?
General interoperability and technical stability, nothing else.
Q39:
How should global policy requirements (adherence to a TLD's charter, requirements
of representativeness, interoperability requirements, etc.) be enforced?
They just
shouldn't be enforced more than now. Take the status quo.
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. But of course it is wise not to allow Joe Anybody
to run a new registry: .ibm and .ribm in it. ICANN should try to avoid international
trademarks as gtld names, if possible, except for the trademark holder himself. But:
if something like this happens, there shouldn't be any restrictions AFTERWARDS.
Q41:
Does the start up of a new TLD pose additional risks to intellectual property rights
that warrant additional protections?
No, as long as you introduce "r"-domains.
If you don't, the existing legislation is definitely too severe and the only problem
will be that injustice shall continue. You can only prevent this by declaring the
Internet to be a "trademark-free-worldwide-virtual country". But give the trademarkholder
(As e.g. myself) the "r"-domains, please.
Q42: Should the protections afforded
intellectual property in the start-up phase of new TLDs differ depending on the type
of TLD?
No and no sunrise system is requested, because it heads to the wrong direction.
The first-come-first-serve system selects be quicker minded people and the "r"-gtls
give trademarkholders their space.
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?
In some cases the UPRD may have been appropriate, in
some not. The solution with a "r" registered trademark area in the Internet is superior
to it
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?
None. You can't
create a law saying that everybody has to have a good character, but you can keep
the existing law saying that the quicker one wins.
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?
No, except on the gtlds name level (for registries).
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.
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?
With the above
solution this question doesn't exist anymore. But even without this solution the
answer would be NO (see Dr. Muellers arguments).