[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [wg-c] WG-C Report
On Fri, Mar 17, 2000 at 06:12:57PM +0100, Petter Rindforth wrote:
> * 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.
Doesn't the law require the TM owner to police their own marks, rather
than shift the burden of this to an entity like a registrar? I believe
this discussion has gone round several times in WG-B, where it belongs.
If there is a need for quick, efficient searching of multiple TLDs for
possible infringement as the number of TLDs grow, I'm sure businesses
will spring up to fill that need.
In fact, they already exist. So this is not a complaint about the
difficulty of policing marks, it's a complaint about the cost of doing
so. A cost that the TM owners want to shift to the registrars and/or
registries rather than continue to bear themselves, as they ought.
> * 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"...
Silence is properly counted as abstention, and as such is not
attributable to either position. Therefore, those unheard voices are
effectively and correctly ignored. If you did not vote, and the result
is not to your liking, you have nobody to blame but yourself.
> * 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.
We've already had this discussion, and this vote.
And the method used to " [...] distinguish among identical domain name
registered in different TLDs" is the TLD itself. it's a unique string,
plainly visible for all to see.
Or are we now going to suggest that foo.cx is confusingly similar to
foo.baz? If so, perhaps it's truly time to scrap the domain name system
as it currently exists and put the BIND code to a different, less
confusing use, because as time goes by, the namespace _WILL_ become
larger. It's inevitable.
Mark C. Langston
Systems & Network Admin
San Jose, CA