RE: [council] WIPO-II

[Marc Schneiders <marc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Lucy, I agree, new TLDs are a good idea. They solve nothing though for
major trademark owners, who will no be satisfied with anything less
than their trademark.com. And .net, and .org, and all the rest. With
the latter I am not happy. I understand that disney will not accept me
registering disney.net. And I don't want to fight that, or nokia.net.
These are coined or family names (I don't know.)
But I once got into legal problems over registering hyperbole.net.
These were solved so no hard feelings. But I have difficulty with
allowing ALL trademark holders or ALL countries or IGO's or whatever
WIPO or others come with up next to have a pre-emptive claim on all
domains including their name in all TLDs. There is lots of people
called Erikson in Sweden and why should they all be barred for
registering their family name just because there is a mobile phone
manufacturer once called Erikson and now part of Sony?

As for country names: This is complicated. They are no trademarks.
There are so many forms of them, and the official ones are usually not
what people would look for. (Nobody looks for my country under its
official name: Koninkrijk der Nederlanden, rather Netherlands or
Holland.) We need new rules, and not ad hoc like with the country
names in .info after lobbying of GAC with the ICANN board. This is not
the way to make policy, to say the least. This is not the ICANN way to
make policy. It might be that of the UN at times. We need to act as
council to avoid this to happen again. I do not know how. I hope you
do.

I would be most interested (and willing to think further about) a
proposal that solves problems within your constituency (that aren't
solved yet by the UDRP) but also avoids granting more and more
entities rights to names and words in the domain name system.

Again, I do understand it is stupid for me to register nokia.info or
disney.nl. And I won't even try. But I cannot accept that I can't put
a website on word.web, if I am lucky enough to get that domain.
Obviously I am asking for problems if I start selling WordPerfcet
(does it still exist?) on this site. But when I merely have some
anecdotes about some words, who should be allowed to stop me?

I find it unacceptable that companies that use dictionary words can
clame these words in all TLDs. Similarly, there is no reason why Paris
in France should have all paris.* domains. There are lots of places
called Paris. And Paris in France was (I am guessing) named after
Greek mythological figure. So who own that name?

I am in Holland. But there is people called Holland in the US,
Australia, etc. Why should my country have all holland.* domains?
Should it even if there is a company with a larger turnover than my
country does in taxes?

Let's go for clear stuff. Not all domains in all TLDs. If that is to
be, I am _against_ new TLDs. They are useless. There is a TM on every
word.

Marc

On Mon, 6 Dec 2004, at 14:56 [=GMT+0200], Lucy.Nichols@xxxxxxxxx wrote:

> and just to clarify my comments, I'm all for new TLDs.  However, new space is 
> not the solution to the problems raised by WIPO-II.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of ext
> Sent: Monday, December 06, 2004 6:22 AM
> To: marc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; alick.wilson@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> Cc: paul.verhoef@xxxxxxxxx; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; jeffrey@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [council] WIPO-II
>
>
> I think Marc's point highlights the real issue here ...the need for a 
> mechanism to protect IGO and country names (where appropriate) in every 
> existing (and future) TLD ...not to create new space.
>
>
> Lucy
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of ext Marc Schneiders
> Sent: Friday, December 03, 2004 1:56 AM
> To: Alick Wilson
> Cc: 'Paul Verhoef'; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; 'John Jeffrey'
> Subject: RE: [council] WIPO-II
>
>
> Your line of thinking I do like. But in my view new sTLDs are not
> needed. For IGOs there is already .int (as in wipo.int). And
> countries have their ccTLDs.
>
> I do like the idea, that having your own space (TLD), means your are
> not entitled to the rest of the name space.
>
> Marc
>
> On Fri, 3 Dec 2004, at 16:48 [=GMT+1300], Alick Wilson wrote:
>
> > Colleagues, I wonder if there is a case to be made for new sTLDs for
> > international intergovernmental organizations (say .igo) and countries (say
> > .country)?
> >
> > While these would not deal directly with offending sites in the rest of the
> > gTLD namespace, it would at least provide a single official address for IGOs
> > and countries.
> >
> > The concept could, of course, be extended to other sensitive types of name.
> >
> > Am I right off track or does this have some merit?
> >
> > Alick
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
> > Behalf Of Paul Verhoef
> > Sent: Tuesday, 23 November 2004 10:41 p.m.
> > To: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Cc: 'John Jeffrey'
> > Subject: [council] WIPO-II
> >
> >
> >
> > All,
> >
> > Please find enclosed the letter and its annex from WIPO that we received
> > last week.
> >
> > I understand there were some technical issues with getting it on the
> > web-site but as soon as these are arranged it will go up, hopefully already
> > today. I would like to offer my excuses for that.
> >
> > regards
> >
> > Paul
> >
> >
> > <<...>> <<...>>
> >
> > ____________________________________
> > Paul Verhoef
> > Vice President Policy Development Support
> > ICANN
> > 6 Rond Point Schuman, Bt.5
> > B-1040 Brussels, Belgium
> > Tel.: +32.2.234 7872
> > Fax: +32.2.234 7848
> >  <http://www.icann.org> www.icann.org
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>