Re: [wg-c] GTLD Straw poll

[John Charles Broomfield <jbroom@manta.outremer.com>]

> At 07:54 PM 8/17/99 , Kevin J. Connolly wrote:
> >in the root.  That's what we're here to discuss; that's
> >what you keep trying to pull the discussion away from;
> 
> OK.  We have lots of common agreement.
> 
> Why not agree the new TLDs are brand names, let
> the legacy maintainers hold onto their brands,
> and parcel out the rest by some mutually agreeable
> fair method (e.g., lottery)
> 
> --tony

The crux of the matter. Two choices: a) they are NOT brand names, b) they
ARE brand names.

If a), then (as many of us continue to argue) we are talking about GENERICS.
The concept of owning a generic is something that I find ridiculous. I don't
know if ownership of a generic term is something possible legally, but it
strikes me as VERY odd. Nobody, not even NSI has ever complained about
everyone calling them "gTLD's", and that "g" stands precisely for "generic".
If NSI, and others were really convinced that they were brands they would
have complained loudly long ago. Try telling any company that the brand
names it has are generic...! Hence, letting NSI continue with it's claim to
ownership on gTLDs, and "giving" further gTLDs to other companies seems way
out of line.

If b), then seeing that NSI has its brand ".com", by what superior right are
they allowed to have their brand name (which is not a generic, right?), in
the root, but all the other companies in the world can't get their brand
names in the root? (".aol", ".microsoft", ".ais", ".ibm"...). ANY large
company out there would jump at the possibility of having its brand as a
TLD, and not have to add messy bits on the end. Also, why would any ISP in
the hosting business be forced to add the brand of NSI (which also seems to
be going towards a hosting business) on the end of their name? [Imagine that
all computers were obliged to call their PC's IBM's. You'd have a Dell IBM,
or a Toshiba IBM, or a Gateway IBM. And of course, the company IBM, would
say "come to us and get the REAL IBM"].

It seems to me that the consequences of accepting your proposition ("Why
not agree the new TLDs are brand names") gives a result of absurdity.

So, no, I don't agree that the legacy maintainers have brands in
com/net/org, ignoring of course the fact that it would be ever so convenient
for your client NSI.

Yours, John Broomfield.