DNSO Mailling lists archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Re: [gtld-com] Commitee conclusions version 3

Dear Philip and others,
As I addressed my question in last teleconference, I want to clarify my 
question regarding point #2. At least, that item is being contested, so 
this question could be appropriate now. That item means that new gTLDs 
should avoid confusingly similar names to the existing gTLDs. But, why this 
avoidance could be justified? gTLD names are generic names. Generic names 
have so many synonyms which users could opt for their use. Then, why the 
existing gTLD names should be protected? It is addressing the issue of 
"confusingly similar" for end-users. This term - "confusingly similar" came 
from the notion of trade mark or famous mark rights. And generic names of 
the existing gTLDs have no rights to be protected because it is truly 
"generic names". While some people are keeping consumer's simple confusion 
in their minds, I want to emphasize that consumer's rights for option 
should also be respected and ensured. Consumers are to choose their 
prefering generic names among possible many synonyms.


Chun Eung Hwi 

On Mon, 14 Apr 2003 11:47:20 +0200, Philip Sheppard 
<philip.sheppard@aim.be> wrote:

> Following the third meeting of the gTLDs committee I attach version three 
> of our draft conclusions.
> As usual all comments most welcome. Please remember to send comments to 
> the dedicated committee list gtld-com@dnso.org and not the more limited 
> circulation Council list.
> Philip

Chun Eung Hwi
General Secretary, PeaceNet | phone:     (+82) 2-2166-2216
Seoul Yangchun P.O.Box 81   |   pcs:     (+82) 019-259-2667
Seoul, 158-600, Korea       | eMail:   ehchun@peacenet.or.kr

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>