Return to tldapps Forum - Message Thread - FAQ

Username: Gregory W. Krajewski
Date/Time: Mon, November 6, 2000 at 12:35 AM GMT
Browser: Microsoft Internet Explorer V5.01 using Windows 98
Score: 5
Subject: In response, the Business Constituency is not representative...

Message:
 

 
I can really see that a lot of thought went into this statement from the Business and Commerical constituency group on the DNSO...So my rebuttal will be constructive...

First off I would just like to say that it is VERY important to know where the people who make up the Business and Commercial constinuency come from...Since they were not elected by the people:   

Mr. Sheppard (Europe), who is more or less the leader of this constituency as he was quite vocal in the Working Group B report and was the Branding Affairs Manager, European Brands Association. 
http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-b/Archives/msg00882.html

Mrs Theresa Swinehart (North America) is a member of CORE...I direct you to the link below....(page down almost to the bottom)

Mr. Masaonobu Katoh (Asia) is a business executive, and also is very knowledgable on concerning matters of technology (architecture) and public policy.


I just wish to comment on the following statements in this report (keep in mind the backgrounds of the above individuals)

>> New domains should be assigned to new TLD operators with the positive aim of re-balancing the current geographical distribution of registry locations. <<<

This would only benefit CORE, and further more, geographical registry diversity should only be expressed at the ccTLD level...I don't think ICANN should pick TLD's based on geographical location, especially since you have clearly outlined your specifics for what an applicant should cover...Geographical Location of the applicant was NOT one of them...(if there is even a problem with this, since ICANN has accredited registrars from all over the world to hanlde the dot com TLD)

>>> Operators of unauthorised TLDs or those pre-selling registrations before assignment should not receive preferential consideration.<<

Clearly these comments are biased (again, who is on this particular board)...Also since applications are already submitted and TLD's applied for I don't see an instance where "pre-register" fits into this equation.....If you have shown prior use, and kept a stable registry, that WAS usually a good indicator that this registry would make a good addition to the "A" root server.....Things have changed haven't they...and why is that???

I have two conflicting statements:

>>>consider carefully the benefit arising from each proposal, for and the effects upon, users of the Internet and not the volume of support which a proposal has engendered<<<

>>>>"The BC believes that a possible long-term solution is to extend the classification role of gTLDs to their logical conclusion. One option is to create a large set of gTLDs to reflect the needs of the consumer<<<<<<

What I am reading above in the two statements is for you (ICANN) to not listen to what the consumer has to say (volume, means nothing??), rather listen to what "we" say as the Business Constituency , based on what we think will work....That just shows right there, they are NOT in line with their constituency ...


The next set of statements by the BC, point to a fork in the road...If what they advocate should happen, the costs of this would be astronomical...Also it calls for things ICANN to do that are clearly out of the context of what ICANN should be doing...My simple comment is that in the future if to own a domain, you have to TM it, to "protect" it, you will put a "strangle hold" on the internet's growth, and deny any chance of groups from a lower socioeconomic status the chance of owning a domain name..TM marks go for about $350.00 (US)...Also in the comments below, they speak about the speculative nature of this business...Will anything ICANN do, change the way domains are used, whether they are used for a business or personal nature??...ICANN can't also be the "overlord" here...Keep it Simple!!

(BC's statement)
..ICANN should require the operators of all new and existing Top Level Domains:-

>>>> to accept the legal principles covering the intellectual property, trade marks and brand names for registrations within their domain(s) in all jurisdictions in which they take registrations;
to adopt the policies recommended by ICANN based on the WIPO report;
to verify that applications for domain names do not infringe the rights of holders of  intellectual property, trade marks or brand names of existing entities, whether commercial, non-commercial or individual;
to reject bulk registrations and pre-emptive registrations which seek to create an opportunity for speculative resale of domain names;
to proscribe the reselling or auction of domain names through the assignment policies;
to provide, in advance, protective registrations for domain names that are the intellectual property, trade marks or brand names of existing businesses, at cost;
to proscribe the use of any domain for abusive or denigratory purposes subject to immediate suspension and withdrawal of the assignment;
to resolve any infringement of trademark, cyber-squatting and warehousing through the recommended UDRP;<<<<<<<<<<<<<<


Finally I would just like to comment about BC's statement here...Like I said, you have to look at the make up of the board...Is it representative of their constituency??  Do their affiliations explain, the reasons why they posted the way the did...Frankly I like Mr. Katoh's comments about what he would do if he were selected to the DNSO board...TO make sure that it was diverse and representative...Mr Shepard would obviously want to protect dot com brands...(that is clear), so any comments with respect to not wanting another dot com (is well, a no brainer)...We NEED dot WEB to have competition for the dot com TLD, otherwise, it's value and that of NSI only grows...and Mrs Swinehart, I will not comment other than, CORE is a group that has a quite a few applications for TLD's....and they at one time wanted dot web....Also isn't CORE vying for the dot web TLD with Afilias?????

(DISCLAIMER):  These are my findings from exhaustive research on ICANN and the DNSO...I do have my opinions sprinkled throughout, but take a look at what I have given you..

Thanks
     

 

Link: Link (page down to near the bottom)


Message Thread: