Well, let me first start off by saying that the IPC obviously spent a great deal
of time to answer ICANN's questions which does deserve respect, however I felt the
need to point out some monumental inconsistencies in their commments which in my
own opinion reduces the comments to selfishness...Here goes.
IPC's Question
and Answer:
Q12: Is the Names Council's recommendation that a "limited number of
new top-level domains be introduced initially" a sensible way to minimize risks to
Internet stability?
Ans.: Yes. The IPC recommends a very limited introduction
with an appropriate evaluation period. Creating chaos in an effort to expand
the domain name space would do more harm than a slow, measured, implementation process.>>>>>
"My
response to their answer": Chaos is what is happening now with the limited
amount of name-space (in dot com). Easy to remember names are at a premium
which is driving this market. Yes it is creating some value in the domains
your constituencies hold (Don't think for a second major companies do not have a
few thousand different domain names, i.e P & G ring a bell---they are selling beauty.com,
flu.com, etc, etc...doesn't have anything to do with the P & G name---By the way
(TO IPC: I noticed you had definitions, which shows that you write a lot of
reports, however you fail to clarify what exactly is your definition of a cybersquatter...IF
it is someone who willfully registers a trademarked name..I would agree...if it is
someone operating in a capitalist economy, trying to further there business exposure,
then I do not (I probably would think P & G would agree...hmmm..do you???)
IPC's
Question and Answer:
Q22: How effective would other fully open TLDs be in providing
effective competition to .com?
Ans.: The IPC is unconvinced of the need for the
introduction of new uTLDs at this time, absent proof after more study is undertaken.
It is a given fact that trademark owners will want to protect their rights upon the
introduction of new TLDs. If additional uTLDs are added to the Root servers,
there will be a land rush by intellectual property owners to register their trademarks
as SLD names in all uTLDs. The IPC also anticipates a similar land-rush mentality
and behavior with respect to bad-faith actors who will act upon additional opportunities
for cybersquatting. The DNS will thus experience the same problems all over
again as presently exist with the .com uTLD and to a lesser extent the .org and .net
uTLDs. And, as previously stated, many ccTLD registries are operating as though they
were uTLDs. Thus, the situation would not be improved.>>>>>>>>
"My response
to their answer": I realize that intellectual property must be protected, however
it cannot be done at the expense of people now trying to go online to start their
ecommerce business...You have an argument in wanting to protect xysts.com company,
however you cannot possibly think that fax.com will be able to own a fax.net, .web.
or org too (for all time)...I realize that a generic name creates value, however
you can't trample (subvert) the very trademark laws (regarding generic words) that
you purport to uphold....Now I realize your mostly concerned with the xysts.com company
I referred to earlier, however you must stick to that type of protection, otherwise
you are treading in areas protected by law already, and no organization, not even
ICANN, cannot change....
IPC's Question and Answer:
Q34: Has the inventory
of useful and available domain names reached an unacceptably low level?
Ans.:
The explanation provided in the analysis preceding this question clearly demonstrates
that the answer is “no.” Therefore, the majority of the IPC favors the addition
of new rTLDs, so long as it is done in a slow and controlled manner, and so long
as the restrictions of the “charters” are enforced. The majority of the IPC
does not see the need for the introduction of new uTLDs at this time, and does not
agree with the assertion that all of the more desirable names are taken in available
TLDs or that space is at a premium. Statements concerning the lack of useful names
grossly overstates the space issue and stops short of recognizing that: (i)
the maximum number of characters in a URL is now 64; and (ii) it is completely plausible,
acceptable, and realistic for domain name registrants to combine two or more common,
"simple" words, which are still memorable to Web surfers looking for a particular
site. To support these two counter-arguments, one need only take into consideration
the following examples:
http://www.hearme.com; http://www.mysap.com; http://www.statusfactory.com;
http://www.webmd.com; http://www.razorfish.com; http://www.globaltravel.com; http://www.urologychannel.com;
http://www.verbaladvantage.com; and http://www.goldportfolio.com. All of these
domain names, and more, take two "simple" words and combine them to create a URL
that is still easy to remember.>>>>>>>>
"My response to their answer": One
can only read this answer and scratch their head....www.BrainDrain.com???? Kind of
catchy isn't it...but what if I wanted choice....our DNS system is not some fragile
system whereby the addition of new TLD's would bring locust and the plague...I would
suggest reading Dr. Mueller's comments regarding this issue...Nonetheless...The above
answer to question #34 is like saying to a growing city...we do not need anymore
Stop Lights, because the increased number of drivers will make sure to stop for people
when their supposed to, and they "probably" won't go down any other streets then
the main ones where the stop lights are...I realize this sounds sarcastic (It wasn't
meant to be) however do you see my point...Then in their response they insult everyone's
intelligence with giving a 101 class on naming your business with 15 mor more letters....geez
louise folks...You need to get out on the infobahn...I realize your area of expertise
is intellectual property protection and you expend all your energy doing this (to
the benefit of your constintency), but to ignore another side of it for a abstract
view(the general population) is ludicrious...(in my opinion of course)
IPC's Question
and Answer:
Q41: Does the start up of a new TLD pose additional risks to intellectual
property rights that warrant additional protections?
Ans.: Yes. The ongoing
problems associated with existing uTLDs strongly suggest that a new uTLD will provide
an additional opportunity for bad-faith actors to capitalize on the goodwill associated
with intellectual property.>>>>>>>>
"My response to their answer": I only needed
to copy and paste a snippet from their response to Q9: (Kind of makes you wonder
what exactly are they afraid of if they INDEED believe the following:)
IPC's response
to Q9): The overwhelming majority* of the IPC believes that the UDRP is in
fact working well in the majority of cases for rights holders who choose to take
advantage of this procedure. (* The lone dissenting views to this otherwise uncontested
position of the IPC, as well as the other views of the member organization expressing
such views, appear at the end of this document.) It is providing a relatively quick
and inexpensive method of combating cybersquatting, and may be making SLD registrations
in the presently available uTLDs (at present, the TLDs of concern are in the .com,
.org, and .net domains) less prone to cybersquatting. It now has become more
difficult for a cybersquatter to extort large sums when it only takes comparatively
fewer funds to initiate the UDRP. Additional national laws, such as the U.S.
Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, also have been effective in combating
this illicit practice.
IPC's Question and Answer:
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? How long would such an evaluation likely take to complete?
Ans.:
The IPC endorses an evaluation of the UDRP, but not so that it would delay the introduction
of new TLDs. The IPC would suggest, however, that prior to the introduction
of new TLDs, modifications be made in the UDRP for matters that include, among other
things, alleged charter violations. The IPC volunteers its constituent members
to work with a task force to accomplish this. If ICANN were to authorize such
a task force shortly after the July 2000, meeting in Yokohama, Japan, it is anticipated
that this group’s evaluation and recommendations could be completed within a period
of 4 to 5 months.>>>>>>
My response to their answers: I applaud their intent
for wanting to join a task force to help take a look at UDRP, however all groups
must be representative, i.e internet community, business, etc..I would think the
new At-Large members are going to be invovled with these issues..no need to create
new boards, to police some new policy which may or may not get voted in....
IPC's
Question and Answer:
Q59: Which types of TLDs will best serve the DNS?
Ans.:
A majority of the IPC believes that if cybersquatters had their choice they would
invariably choose to register within an open, uTLDs. This type of TLD permits
more registrations, would be used more frequently, would become more popular, and
thereby would lead to more opportunities for bad faith registrations within that
TLD>>>>
My response to their answer": Again please clarify your definition
of what a cybersquatter is....As in the P & G case would they be deemed "cybersquatters"....Somehow,
I truly believe the underlining premise for your agrument (since you believe the
UDRP is working) is to block competition in the name space and therefore protect
a monopoly (those that are entrechend now)...Why should I not be allowed to start
a www.killer.web company...Would this somehow infringe on www.killer.com's rights???
IF so please CLARIFY...making generalistic statement as you (IPC) have throughout
debases your whole argument...IN a way, I am here to help you...IF you are to protect
xyssy.com company, you must articulate your answers to ICANN...otherwise the point
is lost...It is kind of like the american congress...if you want a bill to pass...don't
heap on a lot of extra language a pork (i.e programs not affialiated with the bill
at hand)...make your case specific...as you to try to broadened your argument you
would in effect (with or without knowledge) destabilize the DNS....
IPC's Question
and Answer:
Q62: Which other structural factors, if any, should ICANN consider
in determining the potential success of a specific TLD proposal?
Ans.: All TLD
applicants should be asked to spell out how they propose to fulfill the following
criteria:
(1) collection and maintenance of accurate registrant contact details;
(2)
provision of unfettered and robust centralized (cross-registry) WhoIs access to the
public via the Internet on a 24 hour/7 day-per-week basis, without cost to the user;
(3)
provision of an equitable and efficient dispute resolution procedure;
(4) mechanism
for protection of trademark interests;
(5) cooperation with ICANN compliance mechanism
concerning the preceding criteria>>>
"My response to their answer": It sounds
like you have set a high bar for new TLD applicants....I hope the suggestions are
in line with what a registry for a .com company now must pass....I myself have voted
for Image Online Design (IOD) which is a .web registry...They have what you are calling
for, however the issue of a mechanism for Trademark Interests puzzles me...Putting
undue restrictions on a company that has as much of a right as Network Solutions
is against the law to put it frankly...Network Solutions does not have any such mechanism,
that I know of...however they have cross branded with a firm that will do checks
are your name for a "nominal" fee...What I am saying is that any new TLD registrant
should not be placed with extra burdens than a dot com registry...this cuts into
their competition which agravates the Dept of Justice...Meanwhile the only mechnism
for trademark protection is the countries trademark office..in the US it is the USP&TO....putting
ones own ideas into a business realm (that covers legal entities) is not up to a
registrar, registry, icann or the IPC...it is the courts...or in a speedier version
(WHICH IS WORKING in your own estimation) the UDRP...
IPC's Question and Answer:
Q69:
What should be the minimum technical requirements to ensure sufficient stability
and interoperability?
Ans.: At a minimum, there should be provision for a free,
unfettered and robust WhoIs access to the public over the Internet on a 24 hour/7
day-per-week basis. Other technical requirements should address security, operational
stability, and the ability to interface effectively with multiple registrars.>>>>
MY
Response: IOD...They have been doing this for 5 years...You can interface with
http://www.name-space.com to check out .web registrations...once (or if) they get
uploaded, they have the infrastructure to do what you are asking...
MY FINAL COMMENTS:
In all fairness it is easy to criticize ones comments, point by point, however in
all fairness I would ask IPC to respond inkind to mine...My comments are done in
the spirit of open discussion....If however you can't logically counter any argument
I've raised, then in chess we call that check-mate....