Dear Friedrich:I gladly take your points and offer
the following summary comments:
1. Trademark holders would get a fair soulution
if they all got to use the unrestircted gTLD (globally), while non-trademark holders
do so at the ccTLD level, provided that no local trademarks on the nameexist. (This
IMHO addresses your Tradeamrk concers -- I will not go into the merits of .REG, as
I discuss these at length in my systematic Responses to the forum questions, just
to mention that: The .REG concept has some merit BUT DOES NOT SOLVE the trademark
problem. Also, it SHIFTS the official trademark burden from the official trademark
issuing entities to the registires; this in itself is out of the scope of gTLDs,
legally and practically).
2. On domain holders. I think that the more apppropriate
basic question about this issue (a "step zero" if you would) is to determine whether
or not the domain holders (and/or the non-domain holders) have *STANDING* on this
issue. That is, determine as a pre-step the follwing: which agency and through
what official action(s) has given grounds for the STANDING, and consequently future
recourse. IMHO, ICANN has not, to this date, given STANDING to any "new" domanain
holders yet, and rightfully so, as ICANN has not made a ruling on any one specific
gTLD yet (e.g., .WEB or otherwise). Procedurally, this (i.e., the new gTLD
vis-a-vis the exclusion of the proposed "issue-loaded" gTLDs) must be a weighed decision,
as there are pros and cons in either side. Start clean, I say, and do not allow
issues which are out of the scope of the main goal (i.e., to increase the stability
of the Internet through a new gTLD) color a FAIR and open process (i.e., ICANN's
pending decisions on these issues).
3. On a man's and/or a woman's opinion. I
agree on your point: it's one (1) for one (1). However, this does not deny reality
and the circles of influence. Myself, i'm neither an institutionalized advocate
nor a corporate or special interest hired gun. I'm just a plain folk whose career
is in a context relevant to the issues. Personally and professionally, I feel and
obligation to assume my advocacy role expressed in some of my comments. In due time,
others will come who can express these concerns themselves. In this marketplace of
ideas and realty-testing: Morally, ethically and legitimatelly, the emphasis placed
on my transmittal is warranted.
4. As to the length of my responses (i.e., 51
pages): ti's all in the nature of the questions being asked. These are not yes/no
type questions. These are complex issues and the way in which they are framed require
thinking, analysis and DETERMINATION to address them through this forum. In
this, I firmly believe that systematically answering the questions, as posed by ICANN,
allows/makes you [to] consider most (if not all) of the issues/concerns and to address
them in a comprehensive, non-linear and non-simplistic manner. If these were
not point by point questions to be submitted to ICANN, as requested in the preamble
for utility purposes, I surely could do justice to the substance of my reponses in
600 words or less.
Very Truly Yours,
Nestor Requeno
Los Angeles, California
USA