Re: Re[2]: [wg-c] Re: IP/TM Concerns & New GTLDs

["Ken Stubbs" <kstubbs@dninet.net>]

your response here appears to ignore the practical politics involved with
expansion of GTLD's.

like it or not this is reality here and if we can't present what is viewed
as a "responsible" plan for expansion tanking into account the sensitivities
& concerns of the commercial and intellictual property community then we are
going to go nowhere.

maybe you consider it a sellout.. frankly i consider it a close  look at
reality


ken stubbs
----- Original Message -----
From: William X. Walsh <william@dso.net>
To: <wg-c@dnso.org>
Cc: <wg-c@dnso.org>
Sent: Tuesday, August 03, 1999 8:35 AM
Subject: Re[2]: [wg-c] Re: IP/TM Concerns & New GTLDs


> Monday, August 02, 1999, 12:49:09 PM, Kevin J. Connolly
<CONNOLLK@rspab.com> wrote:
>
> > One of the things that bothers me is that my points
> > keep getting turned into strawmen.
>
> > We are dealing with a demonstrated 357-kilo gorilla.
> > It has some very well-defined objectives.  We can either
> > ignore those objectives, and make about as much
> > difference in the Internet as the IAHC did, or we can
> > address those objectives, in which case we have a very
> > good chance of seeing our proposals become reality.
>
> > Talk about adding seven new registries and 21 new gTLDs
> > to the root right away, and in fact you're galvanizing a fairly
> > powerful lobby into opposing us.  The TM interests spent many
> > buckets of ducats last time to make the IAHC proposal die;
> > it's not very likely that they'll be asleep at the switch when a
> > proposal of at least three times the magnitude of the IAHC
> > proposal gets floated.
>
> > Unless, of course, someone has about $25MM to start a very classy
> > PR campaign.  Donors, anyone?
>
> So the rights of domain name owners to due process are sacrificed
> because the trademark interests will lobby against new gTLDs?
>
> Lets get them on the record them.  The IP constituency is represented
> here.  If no mandatory uniform dispute policy is adopted for gTLDs,
> will you lobby against the creation of new gTLDs?
>
> Are you aware of the PR Nightware they would create and the consumer
> backlash such a move would have for them?
>
> The internet has developed quite a reputation for grass roots efforts
> to oppose corporate attempts at bullying individual rights on the
> internet, do you really think such a move would be permitted to go on
> silently?
>
> Do you think they are naive enough to actually take that position?
> You give them more power than they have.
>
> The fact that the IP groups will lobby against new gTLDs if their
> agenda is not approved that would deprive domain name holders of due
> process rights should not have any consideration at all in the
> determination of the desirability of such a policy.  That is nothing
> more than acceding to the demands of a school yard bully.
>
> This argument is the one argument that NEEDS to be thown out of any
> consideration.  To grant it legitimacy is to say that we are slave to
> whichever special interest has the most money to fight against what is
> right.
>
> Please come up with a better and more valid argument than the school
> yard bully argument as a justification for these proposals.
>
> --
> William X. Walsh
> General Manager, DSo Internet Services
> Email: william@dso.net  Fax:(209) 671-7934
>
>
> (IDNO MEMBER)
> Support the Cyberspace Association, the
> constituency of Individual Domain Name Owners
> http://www.idno.org
>
>
>