Re[4]: [wg-c] Re: IP/TM Concerns & New GTLDs

["Kevin J. Connolly" <CONNOLLK@rspab.com>]

"William X. Walsh" <william@dso.net> 08/03/99 01:32PM wrote:
>Tuesday, August 03, 1999, 8:47:04 AM, Ken Stubbs <kstubbs@dninet.net> wrote:
>
>
>> 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 intellectual property community then we are
>> going to go nowhere.
>
>Who says?  You carefully avoid the section of my comments that
>mentions just how bad it would be for their image if they decide to
>play school yard bully.  The internet community would never stand for
>it.

Right.  Like the "Community" reacted negatively to the NSI/AIM hatchet job last time.

>
>> maybe you consider it a sellout.. frankly i consider it a close  look at
>> reality
>
>So its reality that we must sell out the rights of individuals because
>they lack the funds to lobby effectively?

Let's consider that NSI does not have a great track record of protecting 
individual rights in domain names.  Preserving the status quo is not a blow for liberty.

>
>Come on, lets call it what it is and stop skirting the issue!
>
>Do you want a decision based on REAL fairness and with a sound basis
>in law, or do you want one based on school yard politics?

We're not dealing with legalities here, just raw power.
>
>The trademark/IP interests will never wield that sword you want
>everyone to picture is hanging over this process.  The minute they do
>they will be the subject of more backlash and bad publicity than they
>can handle.  They know this.  This is hard cold political reality.
>But they don't want you to know this.

Why should this time be any different from the last time?  This sword that 
you think the IP/TM constituency is so afraid to wield has already decapitated 
the GTLD-MoU.  It's sharp enough to decapitate ICANN.

>
>What is disgusting is the sellout to these interests by a small
>special interest group who is looking to the trademark/commercial
>interests to support their agenda

Nope.  It's just an attempt to blunt their opposition.  There's no net gain 
to the IP/TM community from expanding the TLD namespace.  If they 
can be convinced that the costs are low enough, then maybe they'll 
allocate their political clout in a different direction and let the TLD 
namespace grow.

 with regard to how new gTLDs should
>be handled in exchange for selling out the rights of domain name
>holders.  The price is too high.  We have seen this unholy alliance
>for the last 8 months at least.
>
>If you are going to push policies based on who has the most money to
>spend, at least call it what it is and don't try and disguise it as
>something else.  School yard politics are deciding the future of the
>rights of domain name holders (or should I say lack of rights?).
>
>It is truly sad to see otherwise intelligent people try and paint it
>in such a different light.

It is political.  It's naive to suggest that legalities have anything to do with 
this step in Internet evolution.  PG Media v. NSI proved that legal thinking 
is a dead end street on these issues.

**********************************************************************
The information contained in this electronic message is confidential
and is or may be protected by the attorney-client privilege, the work
product doctrine, joint defense privileges, trade secret protections,
and/or other applicable protections from disclosure.  If the reader of
this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified
that any use, dissemination, distribution or reproduction of this com-
munication is strictly prohibited.  If you have received this communi-
cation in error, please immediately notify us by calling our Help Desk
at 212-541-2000 ext.3314, or by e-mail to helpdesk@rspab.com
**********************************************************************