From: owner-wg-c-digest@dnso.org (WG-C-DIGEST) To: wg-c-digest@dnso.org Subject: WG-C-DIGEST V1 #44 Reply-To: Sender: owner-wg-c-digest@dnso.org Errors-To: owner-wg-c-digest@dnso.org Precedence: bulk WG-C-DIGEST Friday, March 17 2000 Volume 01 : Number 044 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2000 08:56:18 -0800 From: "Christopher Ambler" Subject: RE: [wg-c] Exclusions >No one who is developing commercial property in New York City should be >allowed to develop a commercial property in, say, Los Angeles - or anywhere >else in the world? There is no regulatory body saying that there can be only 6-10 new commercial properties in all the world for now. - -- Christopher Ambler chris@the.web ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2000 18:12:57 +0100 From: "Petter Rindforth" Subject: [wg-c] WG-C Report This is a multi-part message in MIME format. - ------=_NextPart_000_0023_01BF903C.6C440DA0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Dear Jon, Thank you for your efforts to put together the Report of the WG C.=20 However, I can not - for a number of reasons - support the same. =20 * The report mainly ignores the difficulties that trademark owners will = face in attempting to protect their names, marks and domain names in = multiple TLD's. I have all the time supported the "go slow" approach, as = I am convinced that adding a large number of new gTLDs will only lead to = more problems for companies and create a boon for cybersquatters and = domain name speculators (a cybersquatter smart enough not to make an = offer). While large famous trademark owners may (and "may" is the word) = be able to use the UDRP and/or anti-cybersquatting legislation to thwart = the hijacking of their names and marks, smaller trademark owners will = have just as many problems as they have today. =20 * Under "Discussions within the working group" it is mentioned that "a = substantial number of working group members did not cast votes", but = nothing is said about the reason for this silence. As you will recall, = the Names Council recommended the WG C to be reconstructed in September = 1999, as the NC had noticed the WGs "high traffic and limited progress" = and concluded that the working group's structure was "not adequate to = carry out the substantive work of the DNSO". Thus, it seemed pointless = to participate in a vote during the reconstruction period. Also, a = significant numbers of WG C members, not only the ones representing = IP-interests have argued that the question of "how many" should not be = raised until we have answers on "how". I am well aware of the fact that = the initial rollout of 6-10 new gTLDs are supported by 44 members of the = WG C - on the other hand, the working group has currently "more than 140 = members"... =20 * I can not agree with your description of the regulations for ccTLDs in = general. The fact is still that a majority of the ccTLDs have rather = strict regulations stating that you can not register a domain name = unless you have a corresponding company name or trademark registration.=20 =20 * As to "ongoing work" - the question of "how": It is my opinion that it = should be the task of ICANN to decide on the set of new gTLD strings = (and, if we have to stick to the "6-10", rather 6 than 10) and then = solicit applications from would-be registries, or existing registries, = to run those TLDs. Having ICANN retain control of the adoption of any = new gTLDs would not only further the specific purposes for which it was = formed, but would also enable ICANN to formulate gTLD strings that will = help domain name owners and users, trademark owners and different = members of the public to distinguish among identical domain name = registered in different TLDs. =20 Best regards, Petter Rindforth Groth & Co / Enderborg Trademarks=20 Sweden - ------=_NextPart_000_0023_01BF903C.6C440DA0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

 
Dear Jon,
 
Thank you for your efforts to put together the = Report of the=20 WG C.
 
However, I can not - for a number of reasons - = support the=20 same.
 
* The report mainly ignores the = difficulties=20 that trademark owners will face in attempting to protect their names, = marks and=20 domain names in multiple TLD's. I have all the time supported the = "go=20 slow" approach, as I am convinced that adding a large number of new = gTLDs=20 will only lead to more problems for companies and create a boon for=20 cybersquatters and domain name speculators (a cybersquatter smart enough = not to=20 make an offer). While large famous trademark owners may (and = "may" is=20 the word) be able to use the UDRP and/or anti-cybersquatting legislation = to=20 thwart the hijacking of their names and marks, smaller trademark owners = will=20 have just as many problems as they have today.
 
* Under "Discussions within the working = group" it is=20 mentioned that "a substantial number of working group members did = not cast=20 votes", but nothing is said about the reason for this silence. As = you will=20 recall, the Names Council recommended the WG C to be reconstructed in = September=20 1999, as the NC had noticed the WGs "high traffic and limited=20 progress" and concluded that the working group's structure was = "not=20 adequate to carry out the substantive work of the DNSO". Thus, it = seemed=20 pointless to participate in a vote during the reconstruction period. = Also, a=20 significant numbers of WG C members, not only the ones representing = IP-interests=20 have argued that the question of "how many" should not be = raised until=20 we have answers on "how". I am well aware of the fact that the = initial=20 rollout of 6-10 new gTLDs are supported by 44 members of the WG C - on = the other=20 hand, the working group has currently "more than 140=20 members"...
 
* I can not agree with your description of the = regulations for=20 ccTLDs in general. The fact is still that a majority of the ccTLDs have = rather=20 strict regulations stating that you can not register a domain name = unless you=20 have a corresponding company name or trademark registration. =
 
* As to "ongoing work" - the question of=20 "how": It is my opinion that it should be the task of ICANN to = decide=20 on the set of new gTLD strings (and, if we have to stick to the=20 "6-10", rather 6 than 10) and then solicit applications from = would-be=20 registries, or existing registries, to run those TLDs. Having ICANN = retain=20 control of the adoption of any new gTLDs would not only further the = specific=20 purposes for which it was formed, but would also enable ICANN to = formulate gTLD=20 strings that will help domain name owners and users, trademark owners = and=20 different members of the public to distinguish among identical domain = name=20 registered in different TLDs.
 
Best regards,
Petter Rindforth
Groth & Co / Enderborg = Trademarks=20
Sweden
- ------=_NextPart_000_0023_01BF903C.6C440DA0-- ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2000 09:10:46 -0800 (PST) From: Rick H Wesson Subject: [wg-c] Re: your mail tim, we are talking about gTLDs and .mil, .edu and .gov are historic TLDs and are chartered but not generic. could you think of a reason that a generic TLD should be chartered and run by a monopoly. Its hard from me to understand why we would take 2 steps back and create more situations which have taken more than 4 years to resolve. The NSI monopoly of the .com .net and .org gTLDs is exactly what I thought we were to avoid. could you make some proposals of a chartered gTLD and explain why it should not be "shaired" and how a large portion of internet users would benifit if it were created? thanks, - -rick On Fri, 17 Mar 2000, T Vienneau wrote: > Rick, > > I didn't require the chartered gTLD to be monopoly, I just said it should > be possible within the scope of the application criteria. > > That said, I believe a monopoly or oligopoly have a more realistic chance > of providing meaningful enforcement of a restrictive charter, for example > .mil > > Tim > ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2000 12:56:20 -0500 From: Mikki Barry Subject: Re: [wg-c] WG-C Report At 6:12 PM +0100 3/17/00, Petter Rindforth wrote: > > >Dear Jon, > >Thank you for your efforts to put together the Report of the WG C. > >However, I can not - for a number of reasons - support the same. > >* The report mainly ignores the difficulties that trademark owners >will face in attempting to protect their names, marks and domain >names in multiple TLD's. I have all the time supported the "go slow" >approach, as I am convinced that adding a large number of new gTLDs >will only lead to more problems for companies and create a boon for >cybersquatters and domain name speculators (a cybersquatter smart >enough not to make an offer). While large famous trademark owners >may (and "may" is the word) be able to use the UDRP and/or >anti-cybersquatting legislation to thwart the hijacking of their >names and marks, smaller trademark owners will have just as many >problems as they have today. In other words, once again trademark owners want greater rights on the Internet than they have anywhere else. In no other medium is innovation held hostage to "difficulties in policing trademarks." Part of the benefit of being granted a limited monopoly on use of words or phrases is the burden of policing them. Truly infringing uses of domain names are microscopic compared to the numbers of small business and individual uses that are not "cybersquatting." > >* Under "Discussions within the working group" it is mentioned that >"a substantial number of working group members did not cast votes", >but nothing is said about the reason for this silence. As you will >recall, the Names Council recommended the WG C to be reconstructed >in September 1999, as the NC had noticed the WGs "high traffic and >limited progress" and concluded that the working group's structure >was "not adequate to carry out the substantive work of the DNSO". >Thus, it seemed pointless to participate in a vote during the >reconstruction period. Also, a significant numbers of WG C members, >not only the ones representing IP-interests have argued that the >question of "how many" should not be raised until we have answers on >"how". I am well aware of the fact that the initial rollout of 6-10 >new gTLDs are supported by 44 members of the WG C - on the other >hand, the working group has currently "more than 140 members"... We have been through this over and over again. The consensus is that 6 to 10 testbed gTLDs be rolled out ASAP. This compromise position has been long in coming. Rehashing it yet again is a waste of time. > >* I can not agree with your description of the regulations for >ccTLDs in general. The fact is still that a majority of the ccTLDs >have rather strict regulations stating that you can not register a >domain name unless you have a corresponding company name or >trademark registration. Neither this working group, nor ICANN itself, should be addressing ccTLD issues. > >* As to "ongoing work" - the question of "how": It is my opinion >that it should be the task of ICANN to decide on the set of new gTLD >strings (and, if we have to stick to the "6-10", rather 6 than 10) >and then solicit applications from would-be registries, or existing >registries, to run those TLDs. Having ICANN retain control of the >adoption of any new gTLDs would not only further the specific >purposes for which it was formed, but would also enable ICANN to >formulate gTLD strings that will help domain name owners and users, >trademark owners and different members of the public to distinguish >among identical domain name registered in different TLDs. How is that "technical management" of the Internet? ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2000 10:36:47 -0800 From: "Mark C. Langston" Subject: Re: [wg-c] WG-C Report On Fri, Mar 17, 2000 at 06:12:57PM +0100, Petter Rindforth wrote: > > * The report mainly ignores the difficulties that trademark owners will face in attempting to protect their names, marks and domain names in multiple TLD's. I have all the time supported the "go slow" approach, as I am convinced that adding a large number of new gTLDs will only lead to more problems for companies and create a boon for cybersquatters and domain name speculators (a cybersquatter smart enough not to make an offer). While large famous trademark owners may (and "may" is the word) be able to use the UDRP and/or anti-cybersquatting legislation to thwart the hijacking of their names and marks, smaller trademark owners will have just as many problems as they have today. Doesn't the law require the TM owner to police their own marks, rather than shift the burden of this to an entity like a registrar? I believe this discussion has gone round several times in WG-B, where it belongs. If there is a need for quick, efficient searching of multiple TLDs for possible infringement as the number of TLDs grow, I'm sure businesses will spring up to fill that need. In fact, they already exist. So this is not a complaint about the difficulty of policing marks, it's a complaint about the cost of doing so. A cost that the TM owners want to shift to the registrars and/or registries rather than continue to bear themselves, as they ought. > * Under "Discussions within the working group" it is mentioned that "a substantial number of working group members did not cast votes", but nothing is said about the reason for this silence. As you will recall, the Names Council recommended the WG C to be reconstructed in September 1999, as the NC had noticed the WGs "high traffic and limited progress" and concluded that the working group's structure was "not adequate to carry out the substantive work of the DNSO". Thus, it seemed pointless to participate in a vote during the reconstruction period. Also, a significant numbers of WG C members, not only the ones representing IP-interests have argued that the question of "how many" should not be raised until we have answers on "how". I am well aware of the fact that the initial rollout of 6-10 new gTLDs are supported by 44 members of the WG C - on the other hand, the working group has currently "more than 140 members"... Silence is properly counted as abstention, and as such is not attributable to either position. Therefore, those unheard voices are effectively and correctly ignored. If you did not vote, and the result is not to your liking, you have nobody to blame but yourself. > * As to "ongoing work" - the question of "how": It is my opinion that it should be the task of ICANN to decide on the set of new gTLD strings (and, if we have to stick to the "6-10", rather 6 than 10) and then solicit applications from would-be registries, or existing registries, to run those TLDs. Having ICANN retain control of the adoption of any new gTLDs would not only further the specific purposes for which it was formed, but would also enable ICANN to formulate gTLD strings that will help domain name owners and users, trademark owners and different members of the public to distinguish among identical domain name registered in different TLDs. We've already had this discussion, and this vote. And the method used to " [...] distinguish among identical domain name registered in different TLDs" is the TLD itself. it's a unique string, plainly visible for all to see. Or are we now going to suggest that foo.cx is confusingly similar to foo.baz? If so, perhaps it's truly time to scrap the domain name system as it currently exists and put the BIND code to a different, less confusing use, because as time goes by, the namespace _WILL_ become larger. It's inevitable. - -- Mark C. Langston mark@bitshift.org Systems & Network Admin San Jose, CA ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2000 14:17:00 -0500 From: "Kevin J. Connolly" Subject: Re: [wg-c] WG-C Report "Mark C. Langston" wrote (03/17/00 01:36PM) >On Fri, Mar 17, 2000 at 06:12:57PM +0100, Petter Rindforth wrote: >> > > > * The report mainly ignores the difficulties that trademark owners > will face in attempting to protect their names, {snip now that context is clear} > >Doesn't the law require the TM owner to police their own marks, rather >than shift the burden of this to an entity like a registrar? I believe >this discussion has gone round several times in WG-B, where it belongs. > While Mr. Langston's statement is literally correct, we are not now facing a legal issue. We are facing a political issue, in which the trademark interests are ill-served by allowing the expense of policing their marks to be greatly increased. >If there is a need for quick, efficient searching of multiple TLDs for >possible infringement as the number of TLDs grow, I'm sure businesses >will spring up to fill that need. > >In fact, they already exist. The recent fracturing of the whois database into separate databases for each registrar has well and truly the ability of trademark searchers to do exactly this. So this is not a complaint about the >difficulty of policing marks, it's a complaint about the cost of doing >so. The comment is so startling, I would use it on fellow zazen sitters if any of them were involved in the domain name wars. Given an economic incentive to perform an act, there is always a price at which it will be performed. If it becomes more difficult, the price will go up. Given the (usual) price-elasticity of demand, higher prices eat into corporate profits. Therefore, existing interests will calculate a set point at which they will spend money to stop the enlargement of the TLD namespace rather than spend money to find a way to police their marks in that enlarged namespace. In other words, cost = k*difficulty profits = k*difficulty**(-1) > A cost that the TM owners want to shift to the registrars and/or >registries rather than continue to bear themselves, as they ought. Nope. A cost that the TM owners want to make go away like morning mists in the sunlight. > > > > > > * Under "Discussions within the working group" it is mentioned that > "a substantial number of working group members did not cast votes", > but nothing is said about the reason for this silence. As you will > recall, the Names Council recommended the WG C to be reconstructed in > September 1999, as the NC had noticed the WGs "high traffic and > limited progress" and concluded that the working group's structure was > "not adequate to carry out the substantive work of the DNSO". Thus, it > seemed pointless to participate in a vote during the reconstruction > period. Also, a significant numbers of WG C members, not only the ones > representing IP-interests have argued that the question of "how many" > should not be raised until we have answers on "how". I am well aware > of the fact that the initial rollout of 6-10 new gTLDs are supported > by 44 members of the WG C - on the other hand, the working group has > currently "more than 140 members"... > > >Silence is properly counted as abstention, and as such is not >attributable to either position. Europeans (at least used to) think otherwise. There is a long standing tradition of staying away from the polls to express distaste with the process. This is why (for example) in the days of the USSR being ruled under a one-party system by the CPSU(b), much was made of the fact that over 96% of the electorate went to the polls. >Therefore, those unheard voices are >effectively and correctly ignored. If you did not vote, and the result >is not to your liking, you have nobody to blame but yourself. > > > * As to "ongoing work" - the question of "how": It is my opinion > that it should be the task of ICANN to decide on the set of new gTLD > strings (and, if we have to stick to the "6-10", rather 6 than 10) and > then solicit applications from would-be registries, or existing > registries, to run those TLDs. Having ICANN retain control of the > adoption of any new gTLDs would not only further the specific purposes > for which it was formed, but would also enable ICANN to formulate gTLD > strings that will help domain name owners and users, trademark owners > and different members of the public to distinguish among identical > domain name registered in different TLDs. > > >We've already had this discussion, and this vote. > >And the method used to " [...] distinguish among identical domain name >registered in different TLDs" is the TLD itself. it's a unique string, >plainly visible for all to see. > >Or are we now going to suggest that foo.cx is confusingly similar to >foo.baz? If so, perhaps it's truly time to scrap the domain name system >as it currently exists and put the BIND code to a different, less >confusing use, because as time goes by, the namespace _WILL_ become >larger. It's inevitable. > If wishing makes it so. I happen to share this wish. I wish to see 1000 domains bloom. It's because I hold this wish that I continue to point out the political reality with which the process must deal. Our political success will not be fostered by saying that *we* control the namespace and *we* are going to make it grow, and trademarks be damned, for there open the gates of hell. Yea, though I am the voice of one crying out in the wilderness, yet still I try to get DN warriors to see that the road to victory will come only when the TM interests join us in supporting the growth of the namespace. Here open the gates of heaven. KJC.2 ********************************************************************** The information contained in this electronic message is confidential and is or may be protected by the attorney-client privilege, the work product doctrine, joint defense privileges, trade secret protections, and/or other applicable protections from disclosure. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution or reproduction of this com- munication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communi- cation in error, please immediately notify us by calling our Help Desk at 212-541-2000 ext.3314, or by e-mail to helpdesk@rspab.com ********************************************************************** ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2000 11:43:54 -0800 (PST) From: Karl Auerbach Subject: RE: [wg-c] Exclusions > >Makes sense to me - Indeed I would go further and suggest that any person > >or company that has a significant interest in an already existing TLD (to > >my mind, *any* TLD, whether gTLD, ccTLD, or otherwise) ought to be > >encouraged to fully focus on developing the asset it already has and not > >be permitted to obtain a second bite from the TLD apple. > I understand your intent (restraint of monopoly behavior). But there is a > significant body of law and economic theory which might be applied to this > concept which still allows for unconstrained business activity and > promotion of efficiencies, without any subjective "morally-based' restraint > of trade, so to speak. Well, if new TLDs could be created on a whim so that there is no artificial scarcity, then I'd agree that we might be doing something that has some bad side effects. But given that we are apparently going to have artifical scarcity of TLDs for the indeterminate future I prefer that we encourage more players rather than players with multiple positions. I believe that any registry or registrar ought to develop its asset to the best of its ability and not, by virtue of occupying two seats at the DNS table, prevent some other potential operator from having a chance to do something good and wonderful. --karl-- ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2000 11:56:07 -0800 (PST) From: "William X. Walsh" Subject: RE: [wg-c] application documents requirements - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 17-Mar-2000 Josh Elliott wrote: > I don't think it is realistic to think that ICANN will approve new > monopolies in the DNS. Sorry, but this premise that a new non-shared registry is a monopoly is flawed. - - -- William X. Walsh http://userfriendly.com/ Fax: 877-860-5412 or +1-559-851-9192 GPG/PGP Key at http://userfriendly.com/wwalsh.gpg - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.1c (Mandrake Linux) Comment: Userfriendly Networks http://www.userfriendly.com/ iD8DBQE40o3X8zLmV94Pz+IRAn3GAJ91IOE8gr0tKvTFz0NMsgtAkH/iJACaA1v2 Ld6i9kJhwFb8o0rL9JneL8E= =6N6/ - -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2000 14:52:56 -0500 From: Kendall Dawson Subject: [wg-c] Wesson draft - (gTLD Application Requirements) Rick has a valid point! WG-C should begin discussing issues for application requirements for a gTLD. He clearly says up front that this is NOT meant to be taken as a final list and -- "would be dependant on several questions being answered before the application process would begin..." So, is it possible to use some of these items as a starting point to begin answering some of these questions about application requirements? If there are points missing - people can suggest them. If there are items in the list which are wrong - modifications should be suggested. This is not a perfect list - but maybe this would open a dialogue on some issues that could pave the way for open, fair and viable gTLD registries in the not-to-distant future. I've made some minor tweaks... does anyone else have comments ? Kendall Wesson working draft - (gTLD Application Requirements) - ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1) General information: applicant name, address, contact information and list of directors. 2) Business capabilities - an overview of the business, business plan, technical capabilities, partners, management, estimated volume of registration, and if established: past performance. 3) The applicant should also describe the proposed protocol and if it will maintain and manage whois information (like the CORE model) or provide a referral whois (like the NSI model) 4) Descriptions of all systems - computers, network and telephone systems. 5) Security - Description of software, methods, and security mechanisms which would be in place. 6) Backup and disaster recovery - Service Level, and QOS issues 7) What should happen in the case of business failure? bankruptcy? minimum insurance requirements 8) Restrictions of current registrar status- is the applicant a gTLD or ccTLD registry or a ICANN accredited Registrar? 9) Fees - price and billing requirements, how will the registry bill their clients? 10) Operational issues - What reports and are generated for registrars? How are the gTLD root servers operated and updated? 11) Would the applicant run the root for the gTLD(s) in question? 12) What gTLD(s) do they propose to run? ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2000 12:12:21 -0800 (PST) From: "William X. Walsh" Subject: Re: [wg-c] WG-C Report - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 17-Mar-2000 Kevin J. Connolly wrote: >> A cost that the TM owners want to shift to the registrars and/or >>registries rather than continue to bear themselves, as they ought. > > Nope. A cost that the TM owners want to make go away like morning mists in > the > sunlight. At the expense of our rights. No thank you. This is not even an option. They have the political pull, let them get laws passed. - - -- William X. Walsh http://userfriendly.com/ Fax: 877-860-5412 or +1-559-851-9192 GPG/PGP Key at http://userfriendly.com/wwalsh.gpg - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.1c (Mandrake Linux) Comment: Userfriendly Networks http://www.userfriendly.com/ iD8DBQE40pGl8zLmV94Pz+IRAlrcAJ9y8qW7HdYcu0MKwNcEM9lmvneopwCg4D9W Q+0j/Bfz5K6Kb08ilYUbuT0= =auZj - -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2000 12:14:52 -0800 (PST) From: "William X. Walsh" Subject: RE: [wg-c] application documents requirements - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 17-Mar-2000 Rick H Wesson wrote: > why is a chartered gTLD required to be a monopoly? why could it not be > "shaired?" Why should any gTLD that is not "shared" be considered a monopoly? Does it not have to compete with other gTLD registries? Using your definition every manufacturer in this country is a monopolist. After all they are the only ones who can sell their particular brand of product. The product is domain names, the extension is the brand. Calling them a monopoly doesn't make it so. - - -- William X. Walsh http://userfriendly.com/ Fax: 877-860-5412 or +1-559-851-9192 GPG/PGP Key at http://userfriendly.com/wwalsh.gpg - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.1c (Mandrake Linux) Comment: Userfriendly Networks http://www.userfriendly.com/ iD8DBQE40pI88zLmV94Pz+IRAhy9AJ9YvAelhcEDAk4sJL2g5hlqChMiEACglynR TOMJjpCLjodltzGigb3biOA= =nU5r - -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2000 12:20:23 -0800 From: "Mark C. Langston" Subject: Re: [wg-c] WG-C Report On Fri, Mar 17, 2000 at 02:17:00PM -0500, Kevin J. Connolly wrote: > "Mark C. Langston" wrote (03/17/00 01:36PM) > >On Fri, Mar 17, 2000 at 06:12:57PM +0100, Petter Rindforth wrote: > >> > > > > > * The report mainly ignores the difficulties that trademark owners > > will face in attempting to protect their names, {snip now that context is clear} > > > >Doesn't the law require the TM owner to police their own marks, rather > >than shift the burden of this to an entity like a registrar? I believe > >this discussion has gone round several times in WG-B, where it belongs. > > > > While Mr. Langston's statement is literally correct, we are not now > facing a legal issue. We are facing a political issue, in which the > trademark interests are ill-served by allowing the expense of > policing their marks to be greatly increased. [...snip rest, as this is really the point...] The political reality, as I see it, is that the TM interests flat-out will do everything in their considerable power to prevent ANY namespace expansion whatsoever unless there is _a priori_ protection built into the very mechanism of the DNS system itself. The TM interests are already protected by treaty, by US and international law, by contract in the form of the UDRP, and now they also wish to have, in essence, all possible infringing strings eliminated from the pool of potentially available SLDs, without even going through a process to determine whether or not, on a case-by-case basis, such infringement even exists. In other words, the way I see it, up until now, in the offline world, 'infringement' has _always_ been bound up in contextual dependencies of manner of use, location of use, market, and so on. Now, the TM interests are pushing as hard as they possibly can to not only eliminate the cost of policing their marks, but to eiliminate any possibility of infringement whatsoever, before the fact, on a context-free basis. Furthermore, the TM interests have demonstrated time and again that they will oppose any effort whatsoever to expand namespace, but they always couch this in terms such as, "we'll take it slow and see how it goes." See how what goes? If we wait six months, will the policing cost magically vanish? Of course not. It will alwyas be around. Unless we supervene international treaty and US law (and step far, far beyond the boundaries of not only this group's charter, but ICANN's as well). The reality is this: As long as domain names exist, there will be a cost to policing them, whether in time, effort, money, or all of these. And that cost _will_ grow as the namespace grows. And the TM interests have apparently reached that price at which it is cheaper for them to prevent namespace expansion than it is to police it. That being the case, I can not only say that I have not seen demonstrated the TM interests' willingness to compromise and work together to foster the expansion of the namespace, I can say by your own reasoning that there will never be such a demonstration, unless the namespace somehow shrinks. I'm imminently willing to cooperate with the TM interests in order to reach a solution agreeable to all; however, I am not willing to repeatedly surrender all ground we may have gained because the TM interests stomp their feet and demand that things go their way and only their way. "Cooperation" implies the making of concessions by all involved parties. I had thought we'd reached such a point with the acceptance of the 6-10 figure by the majority. The recent invasion of WG-C by the WG-B principals, and the apparent cessation of all public work in WG-B, coupled with this renewed push back to where we began demonstrates to me that the majority of the TM interests represented here are unwilling to cooperate. We are all Sisyphus, and I for one am getting very, very tired of pushing this boulder. - -- Mark C. Langston mark@bitshift.org Systems & Network Admin San Jose, CA ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2000 12:21:48 -0800 (PST) From: "William X. Walsh" Subject: RE: [wg-c] application documents requirements - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 17-Mar-2000 Rick H Wesson wrote: > > William, > > I am not suggesting that there is consesnsus about sharing within this > group,; however I point to the green/white paper and several years of None of which specify that all new gTLDs should be shared. > many groups working to implement shared access to the current list of > gTLDs. Yes, the current gTLDs were a unique case. New gTLDs were not coming anytime soon, a long standing monopoly that had had a clear and significant impact on the industry, and as a result action needed to be taken, as would be done in any case where a monopoly was being broken. But when actions are taken to break a monopoly, those actions are normally NOT enforced against all of their existing or potential competitors as well. The sharing of com/net/org was required, simply because of the long time during which NSI had not been required to compete in a truly competitive basis. In a fair and open process in which new gTLDs are encouraged, will require a high level of competition between the registries. This situation would be vastly different, and there is absolutely no reason to enforce what is really a very draconian measure against new competitors in this industry. What you are trying to do is really putting ICANN up as a monopoly, since ALL end user sales of domain names are controlled by them through their accreditation process. This stifles competition, and innovation, that fresh new registries could bring to this process. Many of them will create their own "registrar" type system I am sure. There is no reason for their registrar systems to be under the auspices of ICANN, however. Unlike the NSI system, those registrar programs will not have been created to break a monopoly practice and the major player in the industry. > I doubt there is a significant group of folks from any of those involved > that wish to create new monopolies. There are no new monopolies being created. That would only happen if ICANN only approved a very small number of new gTLDs and stopped letting new gTLDs be introduced. Your proposal would only make sense if that was the agenda of ICANN. If that is the case, then we have all wasted our time here, and let's go home. If we have acheived anything here, we have acheived the consensus, however rough, that new gTLDs should continue to be introduced. - - -- William X. Walsh http://userfriendly.com/ Fax: 877-860-5412 or +1-559-851-9192 GPG/PGP Key at http://userfriendly.com/wwalsh.gpg - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.1c (Mandrake Linux) Comment: Userfriendly Networks http://www.userfriendly.com/ iD8DBQE40pPc8zLmV94Pz+IRAhxnAKDW4RsL1xLLJAg9cXVFxbbZWa/qogCg6AiR 8GO38ljEqPvN4zFBYhnzxIM= =q2ic - -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2000 15:43:48 -0500 From: Jonathan Weinberg Subject: [wg-c] current version of WG-C report Here is the current version of the WG-C report, rewritten in response to public and private comments. Further comments *ASAP* are welcome; I want to "freeze" the wording of the report tonight so people have a full additional three days, in which the report isn't a moving target, in which to vote. Thanks. Jon Jonathan Weinberg co-chair, WG-C weinberg@msen.com - --------------------------- Report (Part One) of Working Group C of the Domain Name Supporting Organization Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers This document is Part One of the Report of Working Group C. It sets out the rough consensus of the group regarding whether there should be new generic top-level domains (gTLDs), and if so, how quickly they should be added to the root as an initial matter. Introduction and summary Working Group C has reached rough consensus on two issues. The first is that ICANN should add new gTLDs to the root. The second is that ICANN should begin the deployment of new gTLDs with an initial rollout of six to ten new gTLDs, followed by an evaluation period. This report will address each of these issues separately. For each of the issues, it will summarize the discussions within the working group, arguments pro and con, and comments received from the public. It will then briefly summarize the ongoing work of the group. Procedural and outreach history The Names Council approved the charter of Working Group C on June 25, 1999, and named Javier Sola (Business constituency) as its chair. On July 29, the working group members elected Jonathan Weinberg co-chair. The working group currently has about 140 members, not all of whom are active. It includes extensive representation from each of the constituencies. (There is one partial exception: For most of the life of the working group, no NSI representative participated. When WG-C's co-chair solicited greater participation from the Registry constituency, Don Telage explained that NSI had chosen not to involve itself in the WG-C process. That representational gap has been filled now that Roger Cochetti and Tony Rutkowski, WG-C members from the start, have joined NSI in senior policymaking capacities.) On October 23, 1999, the Working Group released its Interim Report. That report described the issues on which the Working Group had reached rough consensus to date. It also included seven "position papers," setting out alternative scenarios for the introduction of new gTLDs. Those position papers usefully illustrate alternate approaches to expanding the name space, and address a broader range of issues than does this Report; they are available at . On November 23, 1999, the Names Council formally requested public comment on the Interim Report. This call for comments was publicized on a variety of mailing lists maintained by the DNSO, including ga-announce, ga, and liaison7c (which includes the constituency secretariats). In addition, WG-C's co-chair spoke at the meetings of most of the constituencies at the Los Angeles ICANN meeting, and urged constituency members to file comments. Nearly 300 comments were filed in response to the interim report. They included responses from leading members of all of the constituencies but two - the record does not include comments from the ccTLD or Registry constituencies (although ccTLD members participated in the discussions that led to the Interim Report, and WG-C's co-chair expressly solicited the comments of both of those groups). The initial draft of this report was circulated to the working group on March 2, 2000, and the report was presented to the Names Council on March 8. The working group approved this revised version of the report in a vote that closed on March 20. Issue One - Should There Be New gTLDs? Discussions within the working group The working group quickly -- by mid-July, 1999 -- reached consensus that there should be new global top-level domains. There was very little dissent from this position. Arguments supporting the consensus position Expanding the number of TLDs will increase consumer choice, and create opportunities for entities that have been shut out under the current name structure. Today, .com stands astride the name space: it has more registrations than all other top-level domain names combined, and is ten times the size of the largest ccTLD. Yet it has become nearly impossible to register a new simple domain name there: Almost a year ago, in April 1999, a survey found that of 25,500 standard English-language dictionary words, only 1,760 were free in the .com domain. This situation is undesirable. It requires companies to register increasingly unwieldy domain names for themselves, and is inflating the value of the secondary (speculators') market in .com domain names. Existing second-level domain names under the .com TLD routinely change hands for enormously inflated prices. These are legitimate trades of ordinary, untrademarked words; their high prices reflect the artificial scarcity of common names in existing gTLDs, and the premium on .com names in particular. The inflated value of the speculators' market imposes additional costs on businesses making defensive registrations of domain names. Companies that currently have a domain name in the form of have an extremely important marketing and name-recognition tool. They have an advantage over all other companies that do not have addresses in that form, because the companyname.com firms are the ones that consumers, surfing the Net, will be able to find most easily. If the name space is expanded, companies will be able to get easy-to-remember domain names more easily, and the entry barriers to successful participation in electronic commerce will be lowered. Addition of new gTLDs will allow different companies to have the same second-level domain name in different TLDs. Those businesses will have to compete based on price, quality and service, rather than on the happenstance of which company locked up the most desirable domain name first. Similarly, addition of new gTLDs could enlarge noncommercial name space, and allow the creation of top-level domains designed to serve noncommercial goals. One proposal made in WG-C, widely applauded in the public comments, advocated the creation of a new top-level domain to be operated by North American indigenous peoples. Other examples are easy to imagine. In response to the unsatisfied demand for new gTLD names, several ccTLD registries, including .nu, .cc, and .to, have transformed themselves into gTLDs, marketing their names globally as alternatives to .com, .net and .org. This is undesirable from the perspective of protecting trademark rights, since no mechanisms are in place to ensure that these TLDs enact the same trademark-protective procedures (such as the UDRP) now in place in the gTLDs. The transformation of ccTLDs into globally marketed commercial gTLDs deprives the local Internet community of the benefits of a ccTLD more closely oriented to serving that community. The growth of ccTLDs in response to pent-up demand for TLDs, finally, takes place outside of any guidelines that ICANN might choose to adopt for the development of the name space. Creation of new generic top-level domains can be beneficial in other ways. One proposal before WG-C, with significant support, urges the creation of multiple registries, each capable of managing registrations for multiple TLDs, so as to eliminate the single point of failure for the registration process. Under this view, multiple new gTLDs are necessary to support the multiple registries needed for stability. Adding new gTLDs to the root, finally, is an important part of ICANN's mandate. ICANN was created because the institutions that preceded it were unable to resolve the intense political and economic conflicts created by demand for new top-level domain names. The U.S. Department of Commerce's White Paper saw the establishment of policy "for determining the circumstances under which new TLDs are added to the root system" as one of ICANN's fundamental goals. Arguments opposing the consensus position Three arguments were made in WG-C that cut against the addition of new gTLDs. First, some working group members suggested that the perceived need for new gTLDs was illusory. Public commenters raising this issue included Bell Atlantic and Marilyn Cade. Second, some working group members suggested that an increase in the number of top-level domains could confuse consumers, because it would be harder for consumers to keep in mind and remember a larger set of top-level domains. Accordingly, any increase in the number of new gTLDs should be cautious. Notwithstanding requests, though, no working group member offered studies or other evidence backing up this view. Finally, some working group members raised trademark policing concerns: Expansion of the domain space will create additional opportunities for the registration of domain names that are confusingly similar to existing trademarks. It will present a risk that bad actors will seek to confuse consumers by registering SLD strings identical to those registered by others in other TLDs. It will likely increase trademark owners' policing costs and the costs of defensive registrations. The relationship between domain names and trademark rights presents an important and difficult issue, and is appropriately addressed by registry data maintenance requirements, dispute resolution mechanisms such as the UDRP, and any other device that ICANN may choose to adopt, as well as by national legislation. Trademark owners' concerns in this regard are important ones, and not to be overlooked. In public comments on the Interim Report, a substantial number of commenters urged that deployment should be delayed until after implementation of the uniform dispute resolution procedure, improved domain name registration procedures, and adoption of a system for protecting famous marks. They included, among others, Jonathan Cohen (then an NC member, IPC), Dr. Victoria Carrington, AOL, British Telecom, Disney, INTA, Nintendo of America and Time Warner. Steven Metalitz expressed a similar view: "New gTLD's should be inaugurated only when, and to the extent that, established and proven procedures are in place in the existing gTLD's to improve the quality and accessibility of registrant contact data, as well as satisfactory dispute resolution procedures." The comments of the WG-C Rapporteur of the Business & Commercial constituency urged, on behalf of the constituency, that "business requirements such as the effective implementation of the UDRP and international business practices such as jurisdictional domains"should be addressed satisfactorily before new gTLDs are deployed. The Software and Information Industry Association noted its support for adding new gTLDs, but only after the creation of a robust, responsive whois system. Other commenters, by contrast, do not believe that trademark-related concerns justify delay in the introduction of new gTLDs. These included Hirofumi Hotta (NC member, ISPCPC) (emphasizing that discussion of famous-mark protection should not delay the gTLD rollout), Kathryn Kleiman (NC member, NCDNHC), Michael Schneider (NC member, ISPCPC), Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility, Melbourne IT, AXISNET (Peruvian Association of Users and ISPs), the United States Small Business Administration's Office of Advocacy, Register.com, InterWorking Labs, Tucows.com, InterAccess Company and PSI-Japan. Raul Echeberria (then an NC member, NCDNHC) filed comments urging that the establishment of new gTLDs was important and positive, but that rules should be devised to avoid massive speculative purchases of domains in the new TLDs, or trademark holders simply duplicating their existing domains. Within the working group, the argument that ICANN should impose substantial delays on the initial deployment of new gTLDs in the interest of adopting or perfecting trademark- protective mechanisms won little support except from Intellectual Property constituency members. Public comments The discussion above canvasses many of the public comments received. By far the largest set of comments, however, addressed a different issue. Nearly 180 commenters (a majority of the comments filed) supported the creation of a *specific* proposed new domain: .NAA, proposed as a new gTLD to be run by North American indigenous peoples. Issue Two - What Should be the Nature of the Initial Rollout? Discussions within the working group In working group discussions, members of the working group initially expressed sharply varying positions on the nature of the initial rollout. Some working group members urged that ICANN should immediately announce its intention to authorize hundreds of new gTLDs over the course of the next few years. While ICANN might interrupt that process if it observed serious problems with the rollout, the presumption would be in favor of deployment to the limits of the technically feasible and operationally stable. If ICANN simply deployed a small number of new gTLDs with no commitment to add more, they argued, the public would have to make registration decisions based on the possibility that the small number of new gTLDs would be the only options. This would give the new registries oligopoly power and the ability to earn greater-than-competitive profits; it would encourage pre-emptive and speculative registrations based on the possibility of continued artificial scarcity. By contrast, they urged, an ICANN decision to deploy a large number of gTLDs would enable competition and a level playing field: If ICANN announced an intention to add hundreds of new gTLDs over a three-year period, no new registry could exercise market power based on the prospect of a continued artificial scarcity of names. Other working group members took the opposite approach. New gTLDs, they urged, could seriously aggravate the problems facing trademark rightsholders in the existing domain name space. Accordingly, they urged, new gTLDs should be introduced only slowly and in a controlled manner, and only after effective trademark protection mechanisms had been implemented and shown to be effective. A third set of working group members took still another approach. In the long term, they stated, it would be desirable for ICANN to allow the deployment of new gTLDs to the limits of the technically feasible and operationally stable. As a short-term matter, however, the immediate deployment of hundreds of new TLDs would not be prudent. The operationally safer course, rather, should be to deploy a smaller number, and to follow that deployment with an evaluation period during which the Internet community could assess the initial deployment. ICANN would go on to deploy additional TLDs if no serious problems arose in the initial rollout. The proposal that ICANN start by deploying six to ten new TLDs, followed by an evaluation period, was crafted as a compromise position to bridge the gap separating the three groups, and to enable a rough consensus to form in the middle ground. In September 1999, the WG-C co-chairs made the determination that the working group had reached rough consensus supporting the compromise position. Because there had been no formal consensus call, though, the working group held a vote in December 1999 to reaffirm that consensus. Following the lead of Working Group B, the working group determined in advance that a two-thirds margin would constitute adequate evidence of rough consensus. The vote reaffirmed the "six to ten, followed by an evaluation period" compromise position as the rough consensus of the working group, by a margin of 44 to 20. (A substantial number of working group members did not cast votes. In addition, some working group members, having been solicited to vote, sent messages to the list explaining that they were declining to take a position at that time, and listed themselves as consequently abstaining. Neither the non-voters nor the abstainers were counted in figuring the two-thirds majority.) Arguments supporting the consensus position The "six to ten, followed by an evaluation period" consensus position has the advantage of being a compromise proposal supported by a wide range of working group members. In a bottom-up, consensus-driven organization, broad agreement on a policy path is valuable for its own sake. The sense of the bulk of the working group is that this proposal strikes an appropriate balance between slower, contingent deployment of new gTLDs and faster, more nearly certain, deployment. Arguments opposing the consensus position Three arguments were made in the working group against the proposal. The first was that the contemplated initial deployment was too large; rather, some WG members urged, it would be appropriate, following the implementation of effective intellectual property protections, for ICANN to roll out no more than two or three new gTLDs. The second argument was that the contemplated initial deployment was too *small*: that, as detailed above, a deployment of only six to ten, without an upfront commitment to roll out many more, will be a half-measure that would grant oligopoly power to the lucky registries selected for the initial rollout. Commenters expressed agreement with each of these positions: Bell Atlantic and Marilyn Cade supported the introduction of just a single new gTLD at the outset; British Telecom and Time Warner urged the initial rollout of only a few. The submission of the WG-C Rapporteur of the Business & Commercial constituency, on behalf of that constituency, urged that ICANN should start with a "very small number" of new gTLDs. Other commenters, including Jonathan Cohen (then an NC member, IPC), Dr. Victoria Carrington, AOL, Disney and Nintendo of America, generally endorsed the statement that the introduction of new gTLDs should be slow and controlled, and should incorporate an evaluation period. By contrast, Hirofumi Hotta (NC member, ISPCPC), Kathryn Kleiman (NC member, NCDNHC), Michael Schneider (NC member, ISPCPC), Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility, AXISNET, InterWorking Labs, Tucows.com and InterAccess Company supported the position that ICANN should, at the outset, announce a schedule for introducing hundreds of new TLDs. The Office of Advocacy, U.S. Small Business Administration concluded that ICANN should start with a limited introduction of new TLDs followed by an evaluation period, but that ICANN should announce in advance that it would continue with a steady introduction of additional TLDs so long as pre-announced technical criteria were met. Raul Echeberria (then an NC member, NCDNHC) stated that ICANN should evaluate the operation and market acceptance of the TLDs added in the initial rollout before creating or announcing more. Melbourne IT, PSI-Japan and Register.com all supported the compromise position of an initial rollout of six to ten new gTLDs followed by an evaluation period. Most WG members concluded that a deployment of fewer than 6-10 would not give ICANN the information that it would need to make sensible later decisions, and was smaller than caution dictated. At the same time, most WG-C members felt that an initial commitment to many more than 6-10 would not be operationally sound. Until we see the consequences for the domain name space of adding new gTLDs, there are advantages to a more circumspect path. The final objection raised was that the consensus agreement answered the wrong question: The working group, said some, should not be addressing the number of new gTLDs at all before resolving such issues as whether the new top-level domains should be general-purpose (like .com), special-purpose, or some combination of the two. These issues are discussed in this report under the heading of "ongoing work," and certainly it would not have been inappropriate for the WG to have sought to reach conclusions on those matters before discussing Issue Two. But most members of the working group concluded that the size of the initial rollout could and should be addressed first, before resolving less tractable issues. Ongoing work Remaining questions before the working group include how the new gTLDs deployed in the initial rollout, and their associated registries, should be selected. In initial discussion and straw polls on this issue, working group members fell into several camps. One group urged that ICANN should first select new gTLD strings, and only then call for applications from registries wishing to operate those TLDs. A second group urged that ICANN should select new gTLD registries on the basis of objective criteria, and allow the registries to choose their own gTLDs in response to market considerations. A third group suggested that registries should apply describing their proposed gTLDs, and that an ICANN body or process would then make selections taking into account the characteristics of both the registry and its proposed gTLD. The working group considered the third option, viewed as a possible middle ground, as a consensus call, relating only to the initial rollout of six to ten new gTLDs. Thirteen "yes" votes were cast in that consensus call, and five "no" votes. While the votes cast were markedly in favor, it's the view of the co-chair that a finding of rough consensus, at this date, would be premature. Only a small number of people voted: In contrast to the 64 votes cast on the consensus call relating to the size of the initial deployment (well over half of the membership of the WG at the time), only eighteen people chose to cast a vote on this matter. Even some active participants in the discussion of the consensus call did not cast votes. This makes the vote less reliable as a gauge of the views of the working group as a whole. Other factors making it difficult to draw an unambiguous consensus from the vote include the facts that some of those who voted "yes" added additional caveats conditioning their support, and that voters may have had varying understandings as to how the term "registry" in the consensus call should be understood, and what an application would entail. It appears to be the sense of the working group, among both supporters and opponents of the consensus call, that ICANN's selection process should be procedurally regular and guided by pre-announced selection criteria. Further, it appears to be the sense of the working group that the namespace should have room for both limited-purpose gTLDs (which have a charter that substantially limits who can register there) and open, general-purpose gTLDs. The working group extensively discussed a set of eight principles, drafted by Philip Sheppard (NC member, Business) and Kathryn Kleiman (NC member, NCDNHC), against which applications for new TLDs might be judged. The proposed principles, in their current iteration, incorporate the keywords Certainty, Honesty, Differentiation, Competition, Diversity, Semantics, Multiplicity and Simplicity. However, the working group has not so far achieved a consensus on the content or usefulness of the principles. Conclusion In summary, Working Group C has reached rough consensus on two issues. The first is that ICANN should add new gTLDs to the root. The second is that ICANN should begin the deployment of new gTLDs with an initial rollout of six to ten new gTLDs, followed by an evaluation period. The working group is continuing to address other issues, including the mechanism through which new gTLDs and registries should be selected. While there is substantial sentiment within the working group for the proposition that registries should apply describing their proposed gTLDs, and that an ICANN body or process should make selections taking into account the characteristics of both the registries and their proposed gTLDs, any finding of rough consensus on this point would be premature. - -------------- A detailed summary of the public comments on the working group's Oct. 23, 1999 interim report is available at . ------------------------------ End of WG-C-DIGEST V1 #44 *************************