[wg-c] Why gTLDs.

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

> Behalf Of Elisabeth PORTENEUVE
> Sent: Monday, August 16, 1999 3:09 PM
>
> I fully agree with Marilyn:
>
> | Message-ID: <6751E347E374D211857100A0C92563DC637458@MAILDC>
> | From: "Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <mcade@att.com>
> | To: "'rmeyer@mhsc.com'" <rmeyer@mhsc.com>,
> |         Jonathan Weinberg
> |          <weinberg@mail.msen.com>, wg-c@dnso.org
> | Subject: RE: [wg-c] Straw Vote
> | Date: Fri, 13 Aug 1999 09:43:27 -0400
> |
> | I don't believe that we are actually ready to start
> "balloting" even as
> | "straw polls"; we first need to assess whether we have
> diverse and broad
> | participation engaged in the dialogue about this sensitive
> and critical set
> | of issues.  Let's take a quick assessment, pre-Santiego, on how
> | representative this effort is.
>
> I may add that before asking myself the QUESTION ONE,
> and needed to understand the QUESTION ZERO: WHY this permanent
> pressure and a rush for gTLDs ?

That's not so short a story. The pressure came about as the only
possible means of removing ones self from the dominance of NSI and the
Dispute Resolution Policy, which amounts to nothing less than extortion.
I dont think I need to go into all the faults of the DDRP. However,
should you want a complete history see the links I maintain on
<http://www.dnso.net>. Notably, I have a link to a very interesting
historical narrative, written by Karl Auerbach, whom some of you know
well. Also a link to the domain name handbook pages maintained by Ellen
Rony, concerning this topic.

> What US folks do not see is that they should restore to live
> .US, set up some brand STLDs under that, and see how it works
> under US law. As of today the US folks do not have a choice
> -- it is .com/.org/.net -- they are screaming, and making
> a worldwide noisy fuss for US internal matters.

No, it is not an internal matter. I am surprised to find, among Internet
cognoscenti, such a high degree of parochialism Every domain, on the
Internet, has net-wide visibility. This means net-wide e-commerce and
e-business potential. I could care less that WINGSPAN.COM is in the US
or not. But, it really matters if WINGSPAN.BANK would make it easier to
find and identify. For the bank, it would be a relief if they didn't
have to worry about reverse trademark high-jacking, to  which NSI DRP
leaves them vulnerable. Hopefully, the charter and policies, for BANK,
would be more favorable to the banking community (they'd better be or
they wouldn't get much business).

> The .US is not destroyed neither useless. There is only 50 STLDs
> allocated -- it leaves millions of possibilities.

I beg to differ. It is a known marketing fact that users don't like many
levels of domain names. Thgis is especially true if the last few levels
are crypto-mnemonics (DEMON.CO.UK, what's CO? what's UK? ... too damned
hard to remember) indicating meanings in ways only a Unix programmer
could love, DEMON.NET is much easier. Actually, even Unix programmers
don't really like it, that's why I'm here <grin>.

> The Naming Authority for .US is needed, the law is US,
> just some experience missing.

In France, under Napoleonic Code, this may be possible (like the way
they outlaw encryption). But, under US, with US Constitutional Law,
particularly the Bill of Rights, this is unenforcable.

> As I stated in my previous email, there is no enforcability
> of brand gTLD on the international level, .law is useless.

I disagree. There is every enforcability, since the IP treaty
agreements, signed last January. I don't know the details, but it allows
me to enforce MHSC trademarks in France (my attorney said so).

> But the .law.us is perfectly well defined, and probably needed
> by customers and lawyers (US and non-US), it is quality approach.

I disagree here also. A number of lawyers, here on this list, have made
it clear that ONLY a trademark court can resolve most trademark
disputes.

> There is number of others, let competitors imagine
> and submit it to the US Naming Authority.
>
> > QUESTION ONE: HOW MANY NEW gTLDS, AND HOW FAST?
> My answer is: none.
> .US first and immediately, this will alleviate pressure,
> and bring some experience.

It will never happen. Mainly because no one can/will enforce it and no
company has an interest in marketing within it. Lacking legal
enforcement, only marketing inducements will make US viable, IMHO. Those
inducements are not forthcoming.

> The next step is a complete study about international
> rules under which new gTLDs should operate.

Wonderful, who will pay for it, who will perform it, and in which
century would you like this study completed?