Re: [wg-c] Who should vote for new gTLDs

["Mark C. Langston" <skritch@home.com>]

On 28 July 1999, "Rita M. Odin" <OdinR@arentfox.com> wrote:
>
>
>Mark C. Langston wrote:
>
>>I don't understand.  What is it that the IP/TM crowd fear from >new gTLDs?
>> Is it the potential that someone might register a SLD that >infringes?
>
>
>It is more complicated than that, but on the simplest level - yes.

I know these are somewhat simplistic questions, but please bear with me;
I dont' grok IP/TM issues that well.

Given your answer (even in oversimplified form), isn't this exactly
what the consensus-agreed-upon DRP is supposed to address?  I mean,
with a DRP that makes everyone happy, the potential disputes shouldn't
be an issue, because the community's come together and agreed on a
resolution process that makes everyone happy, right?

I guess what I'm getting at is this:  If there's a mechanism in place
that will resolve disputes that the IP folks helped create, why the
persistent fear of more namespace?  

True, I can see that any dispute is unwanted.  However, the only way
to eliminate all disputes is to close off namespace right now, and
allow no further registration.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding things grossly, but isn't protecting one's
TM part and parcel of applying for exclusivity in the first place?

To an extent, it's difficult to ask the registries to police the
namespace; they're not the ones infringing - they're just providing a
service.  The registrant is the one infringing, intentionally or 
otherwise.  US and international laws are in place to provide a
means by which TM holders and IP interests can protect their
interests.  If a registrant infringes, intentionally or otherwise,
whose responsibility is it to ensure that that infringement is
eliminated or otherwise settled?  Is it the IP interest's?  The
registrant's (who may be unaware of the infringement)?  The 
registry's? 

In my opinion, it would seem that the IP interest bears the burden
of protecting its interest.  Given that, the IP interest wants to
minimize the cost of doing so.  This would mean either:

1) Preventing all further infringements via
   a) closing the namespace (no more growth),
   b) shifting the burden to the registry,
   c) shifting the burden to the registrant,
   d) shifting the burden to the governments,
   e) several or all of the above.

OR

2) developing some means by which infringements can be settled at little 
  or no cost to the IP interest, via a DRP that:
   a) shifts the cost to the registry
   b) shifts the cost to the registrant
   c) shifts the cost to the governments
   d) several or all of the above.

I can certainly understand the desire for 1a.  However, wouldn't 2d --
a DRP that lowers the cost of settling the infringement -- be the most
realistic goal to work towards?

And if the answer is yes, then it's just a matter of numbers...coming
up with a means of distributing the cost of the DRP such that it's
fair to everyone.

-- 
Mark C. Langston	     			Let your voice be heard:
mark@bitshift.org				     http://www.idno.org
Systems Admin					    http://www.icann.org
San Jose, CA					     http://www.dnso.org