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

RE: [wg-b] Common Ground

These principles appear more relevant to the issue of new gTLDs than the
protection of famous marks. For example, we can agree that whether
[famousmark].[tld] is (a) always, (b) never, or (c) sometimes (depending on
the famous mark at issue), entitled to an exclusion from the domain space,
depends on what rule maximizes the communicative values of the Internet. But
beyond that, how would these principles apply?

Steve Hartman

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Philip Sheppard [SMTP:philip.sheppard@aim.be]
> Sent:	Wednesday, February 09, 2000 11:54 AM
> To:	wg-b@dnso.org
> Subject:	[wg-b] Common Ground
> Reaching common ground on new gTLDs and the treatment of famous names.
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> --
> --------------------------
> In taking on leadership positions with WG-B, Philip Sheppard, Names
> Council
> member for the Business Constituency and Kathryn Kleiman, Names Council
> member for the Non-Commercial Constituency, find that many people feel
> that
> there are differences of views which cannot be reconciled and cannot be
> bridged. We do not share that view. The following is a set of ideas that
> we
> wish to share with you as a basis for finding some common ground and
> moving
> forward together. We look forward to discussing these ideas, and the
> principles, with you on this list.
> History
> --------
> One group of stakeholders, the"IP advocates" are all shell shocked from
> the
> wars in dot com. They were given a situation (the monopoly of dot com) and
> forced to ensure that off-line name protection would be no worse on-line.
> The failure of this is that off-line is more diverse and better understood
> by consumers than on-line but that the dot com monopoly prevents diversity
> and so leads to consumer confusion. Given this experience a not
> unreasonable
> view of the future is as a set of similar battles - a series of land
> rushes.
> A second group of stakeholders, the "freedom to name" advocates are also
> shell-shocked with many small businesses, individuals and non-commercial
> organisations losing domain names. This group recognises that although
> e-commerce is big and getting huge there is more to the Internet than
> commercial interests and that there is no reason for trade marks to have a
> priority status in areas where they do not belong.
> Registries and registrars do not want to get caught in the crossfire.
> Common ground
> ----------------------
> 1. The IP advocates do not have IP as their objective but as their
> strategy
> to achieve an objective. The objective is the protection of their own
> consumers from confusion with other good faith commerce or from bad faith
> commerce (pirates, fraudsters).
> 2. The freedom advocates do not have no trade mark priority as their
> objective but as a strategy to achieve an objective. The objective is to
> allow a net user to use a name that is appropriate to the rationale of
> their
> domain.
> The two objectives are the same once you look at them from the perspective
> of the net user and NOT the domain name holder: "When someone wants to
> find
> me, they should be able to do so" .
> And it is possible once you remove the monopoly of dot com and the future
> on-line world becomes more like the off-line world, both groups should
> live
> more easily together.
> WG B and famous names
> -----------------------------------
> This harmony exists off-line because it is usually clear when you want to
> buy a Coke (go to a supermarket) or coke for a power station (phone a coal
> supplier).
> This is where the link to new gTLDs and WG C comes in.  The common
> objective
> in domain naming is: to create clarity for the net user by a controlled
> and
> responsible growth of top-level domain names.
> Would the following principles allow us to open a range of new domain
> names
> for all forms of speech, and make it easier for Internet  users to find
> what
> they are looking for -- from famous e-commerce sites to political speech?
> 1. Trust - a gTLD should give the net user confidence that it stands for
> what it purports to stand for.
> 2. Semantics - a gTLD should be meaningful in a language with a
> significant
> number of net users.
> 3. Findability - a gTLD should assist a net user to find a particular
> domain
> name.
> 4. Differentiation - a gTLD should differentiate from all other gTLDs so
> as
> not to confuse net users.
> 5. Honesty - a gTLD should not unnecessarily increase opportunities for
> malicious or criminal elements who wish to defraud net users.
> 6. Simplicity - a gTLD should not impose an overly bureaucratic procedure
> on
> a registry.
> 7. Competition - new gTLDs should foster competition in the domain name
> space.
> 8. Diversity - new gTLDs should foster the expression of views, both
> commercial and non-commercial.
> 9. Multiplicity - new gTLDs should become available as needed to meet the
> needs of an expanding Internet community.
> Next steps
> --------------
> Phase1. We invite comments within WG B on these principles and we hope to
> all work towards a common agreement on them (revised or otherwise).
> Phase 2. AFTER that common agreement there can be discussion on the
> implementation of the principles in conjunction with WG C.