[comments-gtlds] re: Comments on new TLD extensions

[Kendall Dawson <kendall@motif1.obs-us.com>]

Wrong Dave!

What you are suggesting is absolutely ridiculous! ANYONE who owns a generic 
name like "phones.com" should NOT be offered the first refusal of their 
names. This defeats the whole purpose of adding new domain names. The 
reason that people want new domain names is because the good names with 
generic words (like "phones.com") are gone. So, the new companies that come 
alone have to settle for bad, hard-to-spell names like: 
"BuyAPhoneAtMyStore.com". Which nobody will remember or want to visit.

What you are suggesting is a 'grandfather-clause' that will continue the 
monopoly already held by a select few who own choice, short, easy to 
remember, 'dot com' names (which you probably own a few of)  If these 
people are allowed to snatch up all the equivalent names in the new TLDs 
why bother to introduce the new TLDs at all? We would simply have a mirror 
of the existing "dot coms" but with new extensions on the end. I stongly 
oppose this idea.

Companies that do have FAMOUS marks (not every small business) like: 
McDonalds, Coca-Cola, Ford, Pepsi, Levis, etc... should be offered 
protection for their *famous*  names. But, this is only because these 
companies are recognized globally. If you own "commodities.com" it means 
something to you and your business, but the people in Afghanistan might not 
even know what the English word "commodities" means. But, they all know 
what Coca-Cola is. So, your argument doesn't hold water -- and will never 
happen!

I cannot stress enough times: ICANN should not restrict generic words with 
trademark protection.  The nature of chartered (or restricted TLDs) should 
be enough to protect these companies. So, using "phone.com" as an 
example,  if you sell phones you could get the domain "phone.store", if you 
sell cellular phones you could get "phone.wireless", if you run the network 
you can get "phone.company", if you run a chat line you could get 
"phone.chat", if you print a number directory you could get "phone.book". 
Etc....

What this does is OPEN competition in the "dot com" namespace. Companies 
who own existing "dot coms" should not be allowed to use the introduction 
of  new TLDs as a way to further protect themselves from competition. This 
is why new TLDs are being proposed !

Maybe Dave owns a bunch of "dot com" names and wants to sell them. That is 
most likely why he would be suggesting that if he owns a name like 
"phones.com" he should get first pick from all the new domain names. This 
my friends is known as "cybersquatting"....

I will say it one more time for clarity:

GENERIC NAMES (or words) CANNOT BE TRADEMARKED OR PROTECTED !!!!

I am very opposed to business and corporations making decisions such as 
these. They do not look out for the good of the people- only for 
themselves, and their own financial interests.


Kendall




Dave Green wrote:
-----------------------------
Regarding new TLD extensions. I feel the new extensions should ONLY be 
granted providing the dot com owners and/or trademark owners/tm applicants 
are given right of
first refusal on their name at all the new extensions. For example, 
business.com or
phones.com or commodities.com may be generic and not trademarked but they 
should
have right of first refusal to the corresponding .web or ,etc or .info or 
.biz., etc. Or, if a
name is either Trademarked or an already filed Trademark Application they 
should also
have right of first refusal on all new extensions..