Re: [ga] Trademark-free TLDs

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Chris and all former DNSO GA members or other interested stakeholders/users,

Thank you for your remarks and glad we agree for the most part here.

I also don't understand why the ICANN BoD and staff have a problem
with the free market approach or approaches of any kind as long as
there is some set of good technical guidelines for managing a registry.
Care must be taken as to not be too specific as to what those guidelines
are, however...

kidsearch wrote:

> I also will post below to the comments made by Jeff.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jeff Williams" <jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: "kidsearch" <kidsearch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; "ICANN new-gtlds"
> <new-gtlds-pdp-comments@xxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: <ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; "vinton g. cerf" <vint@xxxxxxxxxx>; "ICANN BC list"
> <BClist@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; "icann board address" <icann-board@xxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2006 4:40 AM
> Subject: Re: [ga] Trademark-free TLDs
>
> > Chris and all former DNSO GA members or other interested
> stakeholders/users,
> >
> > I will respond in line this time around to Chris's remarks/responses..
> >
> > kidsearch wrote:
> >
> > > 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.
> >
> > What you refer to as "category-specific tlds" are sTLD's or special TLD's.
> > And there is nothing worng with some or allot of those being added to the
> > root structure.  But not only "category-specific tlds"/sTLD's should be
> > added or given preference.  FCFS should be the rule, and ICANN
> > should not as an entity, have any say so as to which TLD's regardless
> > of type, be added or how many in what time frame either...
>
> I agree. I set no limits to the number or type of tlds to be introduced.
> What I really want to see is that ICANN not interfere in the creation of new
> tlds, except to insure that technical requirements are met.
>
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > 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.
> >
> > This is our members much preferred method, and I believe the only method
> > that would meet free trade regulations and law.
>
> Again, we agree here.
>
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > 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.
> >
> > No category's from the USPTO are assigned or determined for TLD's but
> > there is a "Class" for Domain names.
> > The problem with this method is that it cannot meet the free trade
> regulation
> > of existing law in the US and other countries.
>
> Which they are not doing currently anyway. This was posted as a backup plan
> if they continue to refuse to open up the market for tld creation
> altogether.
>
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > 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.
> >
> > I personally don't see any thing wrong with this as ONE of several methods
> > that could be done and has viable use as well has self marketing aspects.
>
> They claim that this would somehow confuse users who currently have a solid
> grasp of phone books offline. I fail to see where they think an online phone
> book approach would be more confusing than the offline version that sits by
> their telephone.
>
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > 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.
> >
> > Agreed!
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > 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
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> >
> > 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
> >
> >
> >

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