Re: [wg-c] A branded TLD would be .nsi

["Christopher Ambler" <cambler@iodesign.com>]

> It seems that ALL of us accept the idea of back-end cost-recovery
operations
> for gTLDs.

Not by a long-shot. I disagree with it, strongly. It's not a case of
choosing
only those that aren't contested. In this case, if you have one, you must
have
others. I agree with cost-recovery if and only if there are for-profit as
well.

> The only reason I can find for NOT going forward on what nearly all of us
> want is that those that want other types might want to play a sour grapes
> type of game in that if they can't play the way they want to, then they
> don't want anyone playing at all...

Not sour grapes at all. It's not a case of masking the options.

In other words, I agree with freedom of choice on the part of the registry.
Nothing more, nothing less. That's not the same as what you've said above.

> P.S. Chris states that he agree with the points below, not with my
statement
> above, though maybe he'll also agree with my statement? (hopefully).

Just about all of it except for what I noted above. We're actually not that
far off except on this one point.

> 1.  Whether .com is today a trademark of NSI;
> 2.  Whether .web is today a trademark of CORE or IOD or no one;
> [mixed questions of law, better left to the courts]
> 3.  Whether TLD suffixes can theoretically function as trademarks;
> [It is certainly possible to posit a set of facts where a TLD suffix
> functions as a TM (the easiest being to take an existing TM - .mci,
> the other being taking an arbitrary term, .xyz, and ICANN or whoever
> decrees that only X can be the register/registrar of .xyz).]
> 4.  Whether TLD suffixes should as a matter of DNS policy be allowed to
>     function as trademarks.

5. Whether .ATT is a TLD that only AT&T can run (for example)

Christopher