[comments-gtlds] RE: Comments on new TLD extensions & dot web should not be allowed!

[Kendall Dawson <kendall@motif1.obs-us.com>]

Hi Dave,

Thank you for writing back. It is true that adding new domain names is 
going to hurt some people's interests and step on some toes - no doubt 
about it. As an example, thing about the introduction of new 1-800 numbers 
or new area codes. Some companies like 1-800-FLOWERS which have based their 
entire business around this particular string of numbers would be worried 
that people would steal 1-887-FLOWERS or other similar names. But, 
ultimately the courts and the law are on their side. If you take someone 
else's name (or create a name to deceive customers) and open a similar 
business - you are committing fraud. People who break the law and commit 
fraud go to court and are sued for damages. In 99% of all such court cases 
- the business who is legitimate and who is telling the truth wins the 
case. In the end, the public benefits by having more numbers and they adapt 
to the change quickly.

Granted, introducing these new names is not going to be easy. But, as far 
as who gets to choose which name and when - this is what ICANN and DNSO are 
trying to work out. In my opinion, it should be open to all, with a 
centralized Whois/Database system which has been proposed by some members 
of Working Groups B and C. The registry, and ICANN would not be legally 
responsible for selling you a domain name (similar to the NSI model). But, 
if you purposely bought a name that infringed on someone's Trademark - you 
should expect your day in court. The way that it should work - is first 
come - first serve. If you  buy a domain name it is "blocked-off" in the 
centralized system so that no one else can purchase it. If two people try 
to buy the same name at the same time - one is going to win, and one is 
going to lose. Whoever submits the application first - gets the name. I can 
imagine how many applicants would be applying on day one -- enough to take 
down the servers. It will have to be very technically coordinated.

This gets into idea number 2 that people are discussing - chartered vs. 
unchartered TLD's. In an unchartered TLD you would have a wide-open 
"free-for-all" land grab as anyone would be allowed to register whatever 
domain name they wanted (just like the "dot com" model). However, there 
should also be other chartered TLDs which allow applications based on a set 
of rules (or criteria) to join. Thus, if you are an Internet service 
provider and wish to buy a ".isp" domain, you would have to fill-out an 
application and prove that you indeed do sell Internet access. If you are 
caught falsifying information to get a name - your domain name would be 
revoked and put back into the pool. This could apply across the board - 
doctors, law firms, auto dealers, stores, banks, insurance -- anything.  If 
you qualify to be a member by meeting the criteria set forth in the charter 
than you would be allowed to purchase a domain name in that TLD. Otherwise 
- if you are just out to grab all the "short and sweet" names -- you would 
never pass the charter test - and would have to register your name in an 
unchartered TLD (like .web, .space, or .com).

You are probably right about the owners of "business.com" trying to use 
leverage to get their name in other TLDs. But, if the chartered / 
unchartered model is put into effect this would reduce the frequency of 
this type of abuse. Sure, they could get "business.web" and maybe 
"business.space" but they would be denied entry into "business.auto" (if 
they don't sell cars), or "business.law" (unless they are a legal firm), or 
"business.store" (unless they own a brick-and-mortar store), or 
"business.news" (unless they are a newspaper) and so on. So, the charter 
method of creating TLDs could prevent this type of speculation.

I too have purchase some .web names - and if they get added - great! and if 
not - I knew the risks involved and would not be disappointed. You are 
correct in stating that people are speculating in all the new TLDs before 
they have even been introduced. But, this is human nature - whether it is 
land, stocks, domain names, or whatever - people are always going to try to 
speculate on the outcome of a situation. The rewards go to those who guess 
correctly. We will never be able to stop this. But, the reason that domains 
have become so expensive it through a policy of "artificial scarcity" -- 
similar to oil prices. If there were an abundant supply of domains 
available, and plenty of competition among the people selling them - the 
prices would come down and there would be plenty of choices 
available.  Even if ICANN decides to "wipe the slate clean" and start over 
again by not allowing pre-registered domains into the namespace: within 2 
months all of those names that we pre-sold would be taken again anyway (but 
this time by new people). All those who spent thousands trying to speculate 
and buy up all the good names would be out of luck. They knew the risks 
they were taking - they played the game -- and they lost. End of story.

I wouldn't doubt your claim that IOD employees and others who are closely 
involved have snatched up the primo names. But, this goes back to the idea 
of "artificial scarcity" again. If IOD's .web were the ONLY name that was 
added to the nameservers then the people who own these domain names would 
get rich and the monopoly would continue. But, what if .web were added , 
and then all 500 of the proposed extensions from name-space.com were added 
too? And, then in the future hundreds more were added? And, what if 
non-English words were added ? Suddenly the guys like Peter Britian are 
holding onto a hill of beans. Sure they have hundreds of domains for sale - 
but they are basically worthless because I could go somewhere else and 
register the same name that he has, but with a different TLD besides ".web".

I do commend Christopher Amber and the people at IOD, and Paul Garrin and 
Name.Space and even the members of CORE - they are the early pioneers, and 
should be allowed some profit for their years of effort spent trying to 
break the NSI monopoly. They are all in it for themselves. But, if they 
succeed in what they are trying to do - it will have paved the way for the 
introduction of hundreds of thousands of new domains or even the 
re-structuring of the whole DNS system as we now know it. Maybe the people 
at Real Names are on to something .. maybe the entire system as we now know 
it will be obsolete 15 years from now. What we are looking at is not a "one 
time" addition of a few TLDs - but an entirely new paradigm shift in how 
the domain name system is run and what the defines a "domain name".

As far as the famous marks issue goes -- I think some members of Working 
Group B have been working on these problems. What is a famous mark? Where 
do you draw the line? To put it quite simply - the WIPO and the Trademark 
interests will never stand for the introduction of new TLDs unless there 
are some compromises made for their clients. I am not a trademark lawyer, 
and personally I could care less about whether these companies have to 
spend an extra billion dollars to police their famous marks. But, I do 
acknowledge that in order to get TLD's added to the root we will have to 
make concessions to the trademark lobby (read: vampires). They are not to 
be underestimated in their influence and power. I don't like what they 
stand for and feel that it is unfair for the rest of the world to be 
strangled by the interests of a select few. In the fight between Etoys.com 
vs. eToy.com .. I personally supported the artists who owned eToy.com 
instead of the e-commerce Toy company. And, in the end, justice prevailed.

But, as much as I (and a lot of other people) don't like, or agree with the 
trademark lobby, I am a realist and know that unless a compromise is made - 
new TLDs will never get put into effect.  Something must be worked out to 
find a compromise between the "little guy and the big guy" who both claim 
the rights to use a particular name. You are absolutely  right in saying 
that Famous Marks should not have first refusal. I did not think this issue 
all the way through and I see your point.... there is absolutely no *fair* 
way to determine who has a famous mark and who doesn't. If you ask a 
trademark lawyer - every word in the dictionary should be protected because 
it belongs to someone somewhere.

ICANN has established a Universal Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) and this 
should be the basis by which copyright/trademark infringements are settled. 
The registry who sells the domain names should be responsible for revoking 
a domain that is found to be infringing upon someone's rights.

This discussion between you and I has touched on some of the hot-issues 
which people have been arguing for years now. If it were easy the US 
Government would have introduced new TLDs years ago. Unfortunately, 
everyone involved has their own idea of how this system should work. Take a 
look at the archives from the DNSO's Working Groups B (copyright 
issues)  and C (adding generic TLDS):

http://www.dnso.org/listsdnso.html

Most of the same arguments that you and I have been made many times before. 
I hope that ICANN,  DNSO, businesses, Net users, lawyers and governments 
can work together to create a couple of working models for adding new Top 
Level Domains. I  don't think that this is a "one size fits all" solution. 
We will have to come up with various models that work to solve various 
problems. As the Net becomes more pervasive and everyday appliances like 
phones, televisions, (and even toasters) become networked: we need to think 
past our present day situation and "opportunities of the moment" to develop 
a workable system that can be easily scaled and serves the needs and 
interests of everyone involved.

Regards,

Kendall Dawson