Re: [wg-c] WG-C Report

[Mikki Barry <ooblick@netpolicy.com>]

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?