[comments-gtlds] New gTLDs

["Stewart, Michael D." <MDStewart@LadasParry.com>]

To all concerned:

				Re:  	Proposal for Working Group C
Members 
					and all other Interested Parties


		While it appears that most are in favor of the addition
of new gTLDs, whether after the new ICANN Dispute Resolution Policy is
in place and effective or added immediately, I have not seen any
suggestions concerning the addition of new gTLDs corresponding to the
Nice Classification System other than the one I have submitted
previously, which remains without response.

		What I propose is that there be two categories of gTLDs,
commercial and non-commercial.  All domain names in these categories
would be restricted to either one or the other of these two categories.
Using the Nice system makes more sense than adopting "500" different
categories of gTLDs which has been suggested and which will certainly
lead to confusion, and the Nice system has been in place, and has
arguably been effective for a long time throughout most of the world.
The same as the addition of new semantic gTLDs, the proposed system
would allow for the co-existence of different, but similar domain names
in the same class, as well as the same non-confusingly similar domain
names in different classes.  In the long run, the proposed system would
be much easier to use and to understand and would ultimately benefit the
consumer since it would reduce the number of claims dramatically as it
allows for co-existence.	

				The non-commercial, or ".noncom" gTLDs
would be reserved solely for non-commercial use on the Internet, such as
"chat rooms" and "message boards".  Commercial use of one of these gTLDs
would result in the cancellation of the registration, as well as the
corresponding loss of the registration fee, but with a right to
re-register in the commercial category.
		
		The commercial category would be broken up into classes
corresponding to the Nice International Classification of Goods and
Services.  Therefore, for example, a chemical company named APPLE
wishing to do business on the Internet could register its domain name in
Class 1, which would appear as "apple.1", corresponding to, say,
chemicals used for industry in the Nice system.  If this same company
was also in the business of packaging for sale of food products it would
register its domain name in "apple.39".  To assist the consumer in
locating a particular gTLD, a directory service could be provided
leading the consumer to the relevant classification.  In time, indeed,
it is foreseeable that the average Internet user would have as good, or
better, an understanding of the Nice Classification System as the
average intellectual property practitioner.  Additional, the Nice
Classes would be much easier to use than having to guess within which of
the proposed "500" new gTLDs a particular second level domain name is
located.

		I also believe that in order to obtain a registration
within the commercial category of domain names, the potential registrant
should be encouraged, but not required, to first obtain a trademark
registration.  Although domain name priority would still be a race to
the register, the owner of a valid trademark registration for a
particular class of goods or services would have priority over a
commercial domain name registrant without a trademark registration.
Where the trademark registration was obtained after the creation date of
the domain name then the trademark owner would be second in rights.
Country code TLDs ("ccTLD") would operate in the same way.

				The difficulty of transition to the Nice
system is noted, although those with domain name registrations in the
current gTLDs would be given priority in registering their domain name
under the Nice System, and the Nice classes could be phased in.  I see
the transition period as a small price to pay for creating order and
certainty in the domain name system ("DNS"), and lessening these costly
and onerous conflicts.

						DR. IAN JAY KAUFMAN


				Submitted as an individual, but also
representing AIPPI and the U.S. Group of AIPPI, although the above
proposals are not necessarily the view of these groups.