DNSO Mailling lists archives


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

RE: [gtld-com] Commitee conclusions version 3

At some point in the future I will go to more detail, but the simple answer
to your question Chun is that while these TLDs may not be trademarks, they
do represent brands.  Yes, they are generic in the sense that they allow
registration from all over the word and are not tied to a specific locality,
but the registrants who use those names expect that their TLD will have
significance (at least that is the hope of us operators).  Many operators of
TLDs hope that that their TLD will be a place where consumers will one day
know and understand the brand and others will know that if you are looking
for a museum (for example), you can find them in .museum.  We hope that when
a consumer types in .museum that they will know that it is a certified
museum (certified by an specific authentication body).  If ICANN were
allowed to adopt a .museo for example, for museums, consumer confusion would
seem to be evident if that new TLD did not follow the exact same policies
and procedures and did not have the same exact authentication body.  While
they may not be trademarks, operators of TLDs spend a lot of money and
effort in establishing a brand (no differently as a trademark owner spends a
lot of money in establishing their own brands).  Just because they are not
officially trademarks, should not mean that they do not deserve any for of

On the separate issue of consumer choice, I agree that consumer choice
should be respected for domain names.  For example, if a prospective domain
name registrant is a travel related business, they should be able to choose
whether to have a .com, .biz, .info, .travel, .web or a .aero.  But I
personally do not believe that consumer choice would be limited in any way
if ICANN refuses to establish a .commercial, .business, .information or

***These are my own personal opinions and do not reflect the view of my
company or the constituency.***

-----Original Message-----
From: Chun Eung Hwi [mailto:ehchun@peacenet.or.kr]
Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2003 2:36 PM
To: Philip Sheppard; Council gTLds
Subject: 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 >>>