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

["Roeland M.J. Meyer" <rmeyer@mhsc.com>]

IMHO, we have misunderstandings all around. We are getting down to
finger-pointing here. The bottom-line is that the IP community doesn't
seem to want ANY new gTLDs. That scenario plays right into NSI's hand.
NSI's policys are part of the reason for the IP community's
recalcitrance. They are not anxious for a repeat, times 100. I can
actually understand that.

However, the IP community ALSO fails to understand that not having a
ceiling on gTLD registries does NOT immediately deploy new registries.
The market is just not yet big enough for that to happen. That was the
main point about all my business discussion. whether you agreee to the
fine details or not.

We are all, also, confusing new gTLDs with new registries. I am as
guilty of that as the rest of us. My figures were about deploying new
registries. Once a registry is deployed, it is trivial to impliment any
number of additional gTLDs. The large problem is that the existing gTLD
registry (NSI), is very adequately positioned to do exactly this, with
an existing gTLD registry. The only thing stopping them from doing so is
the existing moratorium on adding new TLDs in the roots. That and lack
of competitive need to do so.

A nacent registry would have a very difficult time competeing with NSI
on any sort of equal footing. In fact, they wouldn't be. The numbers
that I have published here are actually an estimate of what it would
take to build a registry capable of competeing with NSI. Yes, it could
be done cheaper, but it would not be market viable, IMHO. Those who
criticize the cost estimates are clearly doing so without this
understanding. The objective isn't to build a minimal, low-buck,
registry, rather it is to build a competitive gTLD registry. Anything
less and NSI would flatten it, make road pizza out of 'em. Any investor,
in such a project, would require this level of competitiveness or they
would not waste their money.

To Ken Stubbs:
If you think that you could build a gTLD registry that could compete
with NSI, for under $2MUS then good luck to you, but not a single
investor would agree with you and they vote with $cash$. The marketing
costs alone would run you into bankruptcy court, in less than 3 months
of operation.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-wg-c@dnso.org [mailto:owner-wg-c@dnso.org]On
> Behalf Of Kevin
> J. Connolly
> Sent: Tuesday, August 03, 1999 10:57 AM
> To: wg-c@dnso.org
> Subject: Re[4]: [wg-c] Re: IP/TM Concerns & New GTLDs
>
>
> "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
> **********************************************************************
>