[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [registrars] Registrar Position Paper


I was wondering if I could get some background on the discussions that led
up to this statement...

> Ninety (90) days prior to any new gTLD being added to the root, the new
> registry authority will begin accepting applications and discounted
> registration fees from trademark owners whose marks appear on the WIPO 
> through participating accredited registrars.

...specifically as it relates to the requirement that the new registry
authority will accept "discounted" registration fees.

Is it correct to assume that "sldfamous.new" will be offered at a lower
rate than "sldnonfamous.new"? If so, when did ICANN stop being a body that 
"...facilitates the coordination and management of only those specific
technical managerial and policy development tasks that require central
coordination..." and move into the realm of specifying business models?

Further this statement implies that some sort of famous name registration
grant will occur between the registry and registrars (ie - xTel wishes to
register a famous mark, applies for the registration which is then
assigned for registration to a registrar through some as-of-yet specific
process for ultimate registration).

The specific problem with this is that xTel is likely a customer of a
registrar already. It is also likely that this registrar has invested
considerable effort in winning xTel as a client, yet they have no
opportunity in holding on to this business as part of this proposal (I
speak mainly of the boutique shops that specialize in international
corporate trademark domain name registration services).

Speaking to other parts of the document...

On the other side of the fence, how was the "five variations" arrived at?
The reason I ask is that this may not be enough variations to specifically
protect the famous mark holder...

ie; tucows.tld, toocows.tld, twocows.tld, 2cows.tld, tocows.tld,
tu-cows.tld and many others have caused our firm to spend considerable
time and effort to protect internationally - precisely the type of hassle
that I presume this provision to minimize, however limiting it to only
five variations only mitigates a very small portion of our loss. Even if
we only need 8 variations to protect our IP assets, the current provision
leaves us with up to 30 new SLD/TLD pairs that we would have to hope don't
get nail by a squatter outside of the sunrise period.

Overall, this document is moving in the right direction. With
clarification and perhaps modification on the points raised above, I see
no reason why we cannot support this document.



Ross Wm. Rader                     http://www.domaindirect.com
Director, Assigned Names Division       http://www.opensrs.org    
TUCOWS.com Inc.                     http://www.domainwatch.com
ross@tucows.com                    http://www.domainsurfer.com
t. (416) 531-2697 x 335                      f. (416) 531-5584