Return to newtlds Forum - Message Thread - FAQ

Username: Nestor DR
Date/Time: Sun, July 9, 2000 at 6:50 PM GMT
Browser: Microsoft Internet Explorer V5.0 using Windows 98
Score: 5
Subject: FAIRLY AND SQUARELY

Message:
 

 
       
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


 


Message Thread:


Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy