Re: [wg-c-1] WORK: Question #1 New GTLDs

[dwmaher@ibm.net]

I agree w/ Jon Weinberg's analysis. 
There should be new gTLDs - artificial limitations are not a good idea for
any number of reasons. I also agree that general purpose domains are the
best approach. The idea of a "charter" and a central administration that
has the power to determine whether a particular user has the right to be in
a particular domain seems to me a very bad idea.
	It's true that the trademark community has been dragging its feet on
adding more domains, but the more responsible elements have recognized that
more domains are inevitable and that the trademark aspect should be dealt
with by getting a dispute resolution mechanism in place.
	Also, I believe the intellectual property issues involving ownership of
particular domains are capable of being resolved.
David Maher
At 10:35 PM 7/11/99 -0400, Jonathan Weinberg wrote:
>	I agree with Kevin Connolly, Javier Sola, Chris Ambler, Milton Mueller and
>Kent Crispin (how's that for consensus?) that there should be new TLDs.
>Expanding the number of TLDs will increase consumer choice, and create
>opportunities for entities that have been shut out under the current name
>structure.  It may *solve* part of the current trademark domain-name
>tension, by allowing different folks to register, say, acme.com, acme.biz,
>acme.shop and acme.per, just as different entities (like Sun Computers and
>Sun Oil) use the same strings to identify their businesses in meatspace.
>It may enlarge noncommercial name space.  It seems to me that we should
>demand good reason before artificially limiting the number of gTLDs short
>of the bounds of the technically feasible and operationally stable.
>
>	Kevin suggests that adding new *general-purpose* TLDs won't do a lot of
>good, b/c the entities with .com registrations will simply run out and
>register the same domain names in any new general-purpose TLDs as well.  I
>wonder, though — is that really what would happen?  At least some of the
>time, in the race to the registry, other entities will get there first.
>And in situations where a bunch of different people or firms *each* have a
>legitimate interest in using a particular string in their domain name, I
>wonder if a proliferation of general-purpose gTLDs might most easily allow
>them the opportunity to do just that.
>
>	When I first started thinking hard about these issues, it seemed to me
>that all new gTLDs should be limited-purpose.  It seemed to me that the
>ideal would be for IANA's successor to establish some system of
>sector-specific domains, such as .transp and .health, so that users could
>rely on the structure of the DNS in seeking the URLs associated with
>particular businesses or content providers.  But the more I worked on these
>issues, the more I began to doubt this sort of approach.  The genius of the
>Internet has always been the degree to which control resides at the edges,
>not at the center.  Such experience as I've had with governments and other
>central planners causes me to doubt whether ICANN, or any other central
>planner, can really structure the DNS better than can the marketplace
>choices of Internet users, deciding which TLDs *they* will patronize (by
>registering domains there) and which they won't.  This causes me to be
>skeptical of any approach calling for extensive central planning of the
>name space.
>
>	Kevin indicates that the trademark community will oppose new
>general-purpose TLDs even more fiercely than they oppose new
>special-purpose TLDs, and I think he's right.  I'm not sure, though, that
>as a result we should simply abandon any thought of new general-purpose
>TLDs at the outset. If we ultimately decide that the best approach is one
>that will lead to the creation of some general-purpose and some
>limited-purpose TLDs, let's say so, and the negotiation with the trademark
>community can come later.  (I don't think any plausible approach will lead
>to the creation of only general-purpose TLDs.  Certainly a marketplace
>approach wouldn't do so — if ICANN does what Chris wants, say, and lets
>each new registry pick its own TLD, all evidence indicates that some would
>be general-purpose, like .web, and some would be limited-purpose, like
>.per.  ICANN doesn't have to decree charters in advance to accomplish that.)
>
>	Finally, I think Kent's concern about "intellectual property encumbrances"
>addresses a side issue.  Right now, various folks are arguing about who
>should get the right to operate particular registries, and how they should
>be run.  Each side has sought to bolster its legal position, in those
>debates, by seeking governmental recognition of purported trademark rights
>in the TLD.  But the main dispute is over the $64 question of who gets to
>run the disputed registries, and how.  If those issues can be solved, then
>getting the combatants to lay down their legal weapons won't be a big deal
>(and I'm skeptical that the claimed TM rights will work in any event).  If
>they can't be solved, then we have a deeper problem.
>
>Jon
>
>
>Jon Weinberg
>Professor of Law, Wayne State University
>weinberg@msen.com