[comments-gtlds] RE: Comments on new TLD extensions & dot web should not be allowed!

["Dave Green" <ctcn@webtrading.com>]

P.S. There is another great problem with you saying only "famous
trademarks" should have first refusal. How does one determine
what is famous and what is not famous or only "semi-famous", or
perhaps famous in a niche market only (like commodity trading)
but not famous in a general sense? There is no fair way to do it.

Plus, it would be unfair discrimination for some third party to
decide a name is famous and discriminate against someone else by
saying their name is not famous, at least in their view, which
may be biased.

You accused me of pandering to certain big business interests yet
you now want to discriminate by saying arbitrarily a name is
famous or not famous, with bias to the large corporations and to
the detriment of smaller firms and lesser known names.

This would only help big business squash smaller rivals who's
names may not be famous, whatever than really means.

Dave


Hi Kendall,

Ok, I see your point. After the way you discussed and after
thinking about it I have changed my position on generic dot com
names having right of first refusal. But how else can new
extensions be implemented fairly. It seems impossible.

How is it determined who gets business.info or business.store or
business.wireless or business.art or business.biz? Can you
imagine how many hundreds or thousands of initial applicants
there will be for this name and others like wallstreet - drugs -
drugstore - stocks - stockmarket - openhouse - realty - byowner -
tv - television - music - internet - computers - commodities -
options - daytrading - banks - loans - banking - etc, etc.

Also, I am sure the owner of business.com after paying 8 Million
and the owner of other names purchased for small fortunes will
also be trying to register them first. They will likely contract
with certain registrars and domain experts to get theirs approved
first thru insider contacts, fast internet registration
knowledge, and any other means they have at their deep pockets
disposal.

There may be hundreds of others also trying to register names
like these at the stroke of midnight, assuming the date and time
is known in advance to everyone. What will happen if 700 people
click to register business.info or business.store or sex.info or
drug.store, etc., at the exact same time? Who will get it? Can
you imagine how much drug.store or sex.biz may be worth if the
new extensions are popular!

Also, what about the dot web extension which has been taking web
pre-registrations for a number of years. Even though I recently
purchased 3 dot web names (not super good names) they should not
be allowed at all. That's because I later found out there are
about 5 individuals who have registered nearly all the great one
word names.

The proposed .WEB extension should not be allowed, or the top
names should be offered again openly to the public and only
secondary name registrations should be allowed.

After much time on their data base I determined approx 5 people
had registered almost all the good valuable one-word names,
especially the financial type names, almost all the great finance
ones registered to a man names Peter Britain, and many one or two
character ones also.

I also note some of these top registrants live in the vicinity of
IO Design's location. Also, it has been said by others some are
employees or associates of that firm. The dot web extension seems
to be mostly a fraudulent way for some IO Design insiders to
become wealthy.

If approved and if dot web becomes popular then Peter Britain and
some others will become incredibly wealthy. Plus, it would not
serve the public as like I said, most all the great one word
names are all preregistered to these favored few.

Sincerely,

D. M. Green
dave@traders.org


-----Original Message-----
From: Kendall Dawson [mailto:kendall@motif1.obs-us.com]
Sent: April 15, 2000 11:08 AM
To: comments-gtlds@dnso.org
Cc: dave@traders.org
Subject: re: Comments on new TLD extensions


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