Return to wgc Forum - Message Thread - FAQ

Username: spicetrader
Date/Time: Thu, April 13, 2000 at 4:31 AM GMT
Browser: Netscape Communicator V4.7 using Windows 98
Score: 5
Subject: rebuttal to arg against TLD expansion


        Domain names are, among other things, a mode of expression, that is, a form of speech. For this reason, we should avoid arbitrary constraints on domain names.

People want various top level domains other than the traditional org, mil, com, net, edu, etc., and they are willing to pay for them. The desire for nontradional names is not destructive or malicious or dangerous to any living creatures. ICANN should then play the role of guiding a graceful transition from the existing state to the new state.

Is it argued that people do not "need" additional names? That is true. We do not "need" an Internet, either. The people should have the additional names because they want them. They should not have to demonstrate necessity. The right to the pursuit of happiness is essentially the right to act without demonstrating necessity.

It is argued that some persons will be confused by the addition of new top level domains. This is probably true, and these people are probably already confused and will remain so for the rest of their lives with or without additional top level domains. Their confusion will not increase with additional TLDs. My own fear of confusion is not sufficiently intense for me to hope that ICANN will protect me from confusion. I have confidence in my ability to cope and even to physically survive in a world with large numbers of TLDs.

It is argued that trademark infringement will occur if TLDs increase. Without doubt, this is true. Trademark infringement already exists, and it will persist whether there are additional TLDs or not. Furthermore, since people in the Western Democracies are free to use any words they wish in common speech and writing, the opportunities for trademark infringement are abundant, limited only by the energy of the infringer. Additional TLDs will not change this condition. I suppose some classes of lawyers get sexually excited and/or pee in their pants with the prospect of trademark infringements. However, I suspect most people do not consider the possibility of trademark infringement a threat to civilization.      
On the Internet, we have ample experience with the uncontrolled use of names, with the Usenet newsgroups being a prominent example. Despite the ever-proliferating surfeit of newsgroup names, our species has yet to perish from the peril of unrestricted use of words.



Message Thread:

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy