[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [wg-c] Re: [wg-c-3] Notes on new gTLD registries
> Modulo certain global issues (eg, the completion of a famous marks
> exclusion process), I have seen *no-one* who objects to
> non-proprietary gTLDs being put in the root -- even Chris Ambler has
> stated multiple times that he doesn't mind having non-profit, public
> resource style registries. (*)
If and only if other models are allowed. If it is mandated as the only
model, I am rather opposed to it.
> On the other hand, it is incontrovertible that there is widespread
> and deep opposition to the idea of putting proprietary gTLDs in the
I disagree. Prove it. For everyone that you say is against it, I'll give
you two who are for it, in the form of customers of IOD, Iperdome,
and perhaps even CORE.
For that matter, the majority DON'T GIVE A DAMN.
> Furthermore, we can insert non-proprietary TLDs in the root *without*
> deciding the ultimate question of whether proprietary TLDs should be
> allowed --
Furthermore, we can insert proprietary TLDs into the root *without*
deciding the ultimate question of whether non-proprietary TLDs should
be allowed -- inserting even a single non-proprietary TLD requires that
decision to be made.
> Remember that there are *no* proprietary TLDs
> of any stripe in the root, now.
Really? NSI disagrees, and until a court decides, you cannot say
otherwise. .COM is their intellectual property until a court says
> While Chris Ambler has been making veiled threats of legal action if
> *his* .web isn't the first gTLD added...
Let's go over this once again. .WEB isn't mine, it's Image Online
Design's. While I'm a shareholder in the company, I'm also a
shareholder of NSI, and I don't claim .COM either. Furthermore,
IOD has stated on numerous occasions that it is perfectly happy
to go LAST when new TLDs are added. The only issue here is
that .WEB is a trademark of Image Online Design, Inc.
Now, is the company willing to run a shared registry? Yes. Is
the company willing to meet objective criteria for entry? Yes. Is
the company willing to let someone else run .WEB, or to be told
that it must reincorporate itself as a non-profit? Absolutely not.
Thankfully, forcing such action is against the law.
> It is my personal opinion that ICANN has no realistic choice in this
> matter -- I don't think they can afford to do anything as
> controversial as breaking the totally new ground of adding a private
And I would say that they have no choice - if they fail to recognize
intellectual property claims, they're in serious trouble.
> You note my use of "the CORE set". Though I am a CORE supporter,
> that is, believe it or not, not the reason I propose them. I propose
> them because they (minus .web -- I only proposed six) have a
> substantial history as non-proprietary gTLD candidates. [Notice that
> I am proposing *names*, not registries.]
You didn't mention which six. Please note that there is also intellectual
property protection for .ARTS that does not reside with CORE.
Again, I maintain that this issue is not ours to decide. What unmitigated
delusions of grandeur we must have to be deciding these issues. We'll
tell YOU what business model to use, and we'll tell YOU which new
TLDs you can have.