Re: [wg-c] GTLD Straw poll

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

"Christopher Ambler" <cambler@iodesign.com> 08/17/99 04:35PM >>> wrote,
quoting Ken Stubbs' earlier post:

>> why dont you try  to a response built on some sort of a foundation other
>> than personal derision chris ?
>> 
>> do you feel that you should "own"  a gtld chris ?
>
>No personal derision, Ken, you made a claim that flies in the face of your
>actions and the action of your organization. You claim that the TLD
>namespace should be a public trust, yet your organization has not only
>filed for trademark on 6 TLDs, but one of them currently enjoys
>protection.
>
>Hardly a consistent position.
>
>Trying to turn it around by attacking me doesn't help much. Whether I
>feel I should own a TLD is irrelevant. Maybe I do. That's not the
>issue. I've never claimed to support the public trust model. You have.
>
>You're in big trouble on this one.
>
>Christopher
>

There is a world of difference between (A) a collective mark, held by a non-profit
organization whose charter subjects its actions to oversight in the public interest
and (B) a mark claimed by a for profit entrepreneur whose primary claim to fame is
that he wrote out a $1,000 check to IANA on the night Jon Postel first floated
his internet-draft.  There's also a world of difference between the conduct of a
group of actors who subjected their architecture and policy to public scrutiny,
consistent with the practice of the Internet Community in the early- to mid- 1990s, and
a sooner whose conduct of late reminds any thinking observer of Aesop's tale
of the dog in the manger and who openly disavows any intention of subjecting
his conduct to oversight.  CORE is not playing dog in the manger; it
has stated on this list that its trademark application was pre-emptive,
intended to preclude other claimants from interfering in CORE's
plan to administer those gTLDs that are administered to it consistently
with the public trust; and its conduct in filing a trademark registration
is entirely consistent with its stated aims and policies.

On another level, I think we should remember that we are discussing
generic top level domains.  That "g" word carries with it a very strong
implication that no trademark can validly be claimed in the TLD.  Trademark
law teaches that marks come in a variety of types: generic, descriptive,
suggestive, arbitrary and fanciful.  I seem to recall that generic names are
those in which no trademark can arise.  I can't register a trademark for
"Water brand of dihydrogen monoxide beverage."  If, on the other hand,
I can validly register "foo brand of whatsis," then there's a fairly strong
implication that foo is not generic.  (Modus tollens, i.e. {(p - ->q ^ !q) - ->!p}).

In which case it's outside the scope of this WG.

In which case it'll be a long time before ICANN is likely to consider adding
it to the root zone.  Hence the analogy to the dog in the manger.

KJC
<usual yada>

**********************************************************************
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
**********************************************************************