Re: [ga] Trademark-free TLDs

["kidsearch" <kidsearch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Exactly on point, Jeff. That is why either category-specific tlds based on
either the phone book method or the USPTO catagory method would be better IF
ICANN is to be the entity that chooses which tlds are to be allocated.

My 1st preference: ICANN simply act as uber-registry for tlds, allowing
companies to choose the tld they want to manage, register it with ICANN if
it is not already taken, then market their domain names at whatever price
they choose. The market, through competition will keep the price down.

My 2nd preference: ICANN put up for allocation tlds that reflect all major
categories of trademark you can register. 1 tld per tm category. WIPO should
adjust the UDRP at that point to reflect that your domain name is protected
by your trademark ONLY if you register the domain name in the tld that
reflects the same USPTO category.

My 3rd preference: ICANN put up for allocation tlds that reflect the
categories in phone books, making it easier for people to understand what
type of websites might be found on a specific tld. This would also have the
effect of limiting trademark protection to those that register a domain name
in the same category they would place an ad in the yellow pages under.

Which of those 3, or another option do others here prefer? We don't have a
voting booth anymore, but would like to hear from everyone who reads this
list as to what their preference is and if possible, a short explanation as
to why they like one particular method.

Once all ideas are presented and added to the three I mentioned here, then
it would be enlightening to see everyone put them in an order of preference.

Chris McElroy
http://www.newsandmediablog.com

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Jeff Williams" <jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "Karl Auerbach" <karl@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: "Danny Younger" <dannyyounger@xxxxxxxxx>; <ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, January 16, 2006 3:37 AM
Subject: Re: [ga] Trademark-free TLDs


> Karl and all former DNSO GA members or other interested
stakeholders/users.
>
> As the USPTO has some time ago now added classes for domain
> names to be trademarked, the concept of a "Trademark-free"
> TLD is a nearly pointless argument unless one wishes to challenge
> the USPTO in respect to restraint of trade as to that class of mark
> as being in conflict with current trade policy and law.
>
> Arguing such here on this forum, as has been done before, will
> not now or anytime in the near future, prompt ICANN or DOC/NTIA,
> or for that matter any other country whom has recently signed the
> FTA's with the US to negate or abandon recognizing that USPTO
> class of TM.
>
> Karl Auerbach wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 14 Jan 2006, Danny Younger wrote:
> >
> > > Under the present system that provides Sunrise
> > > opportunities for trademark holders you would never be
> > > able to secure hummer.tld for yourself as it would be
> > > snatched up long before you got to the Land Rush.
> >
> > And it is precisely that history of ICANN prejudice in favor of
trademark
> > and an equal prejudice against other rights to use a name that we ought
to
> > be rejecting flatly and clearly and without euphemism or equivocation.
> >
> > Eventually somebody is finally going to realize that ICANN has no
> > authority to enact a law of trademark uber alles and the fact that it
has
> > been able impose one because of its singular position will be questioned
> > as a form of restraint of trade.
> >
> > There's no reason to hop onto ICANN's turnip truck and accept the
> > unacceptable.
> >
> > >  I agree that a "reservation" approach is less than optimum, but
remain
> > > convinced that most TLD applicants will continue to kowtow to
> > > intellectual property interests in order to maximize their chances of
> > > obtaining the coveted TLD.
> >
> > Just because some people are willing to be servile does not mean that we
> > should sacrifice principle.  We have already been pushed to the wall, we
> > have nothing to lose by standing on principle and saying "this shall not
> > pass."
> >
> > > This is a consequence of the beauty contest approach which will
> > > necessarily prevail unless the Board can be convinced to pursue an
> > > auction approach.  Yes, I know that Mike Palage has indicated that the
> > > ICANN Staff is keen on auctions, but I have yet to see support for
that
> > > approach throughout the GNSO constituencies.
> >
> > You should have heard the disussions about auctions during the famous
> > closed board dinners.  Even during my term there were those who were
> > absolutely, totally, and utterly against auctions, and some of those are
> > still on the board.
> >
> >                 --karl--
>
> Regards,
>
> --
> Jeffrey A. Williams
> Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 134k members/stakeholders strong!)
> "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" -
>    Abraham Lincoln
>
> "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is
> very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt
>
> "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B;
> liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by
> P: i.e., whether B is less than PL."
> United States v. Carroll Towing  (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947]
> ===============================================================
> Updated 1/26/04
> CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security
> IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng.  INEG. INC.
> ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402
> E-Mail jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>  Registered Email addr with the USPS
> Contact Number: 214-244-4827
>
>
>