RE: Brands, TLDs, and Private Ownership (Was:Re: [wg-c] GTLD Straw poll)

[Jean-Michel Becar <Jean-Michel.Becar@etsi.fr>]

Dear wg-c,

I'm a little bit confused here. We are trying to answer the following
topics:

1 - Should there be new generic Top Level Domains (gTLDs)? If yes: How many?
Which? At which speed should they be deployed and in which order? What
should be the mechanism for developing new gTLDs after all these are
deployed. Should each new gTLD have a specific charter? 

2- What should the registration and data maintenance process and regulation
be?.

3 - How should the new gTLDs be managed? What should the registry(ies) be
like? Is it mandatory to have a new registry(ies)? Why? Does the structure
proposed comply with worldwide concepts of anti-trust law? What information
should be made public by the registry(ies) and how? Obligations of the
registry(ies).

And I saw the debate sliding to the intellectual property rights and others
matters. 
Could we re-focus the discussion ? And let the Working Group A do its job
and the WIPO reports is here to answer to those questions.

The main question is do we want, do we need new gTLDs and how to manage them
??? I agree that the some leagl matters will appear but I think that here we
need more tech inputs in a first step. 
If we can focus on a very narrow question like teh QUESTION 1 from the straw
poll, the answer will be easier to find, and thus we will be able to open
rapidly a new "registry" for test purposes.
Let's say why not to add ".test" TLD, trying to work with different ISPs and
services providers to do that, and step by step see how it works and what
the problems are.


Jean-Michel Bécar
becar@etsi.fr
http://www.etsi.org
E.T.S.I. Project Manager
Tel	: +33 (0)4 92 94 43 15
Mobile  	: +33 (0)6 82 80 19 31
Fax      	: +33 (0)4 92 38 52 15



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kevin J. Connolly [mailto:CONNOLLK@rspab.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 18, 1999 16:55
> To: jbroom@manta.outremer.com; amr@netmagic.com
> Cc: wg-c@dnso.org
> Subject: Brands, TLDs, and Private Ownership (Was:Re: [wg-c] 
> GTLD Straw
> poll)
> 
> 
> Readers should not lose sight of the fact that the fallacy of
> composition is invoked here by Mr. Rutowski.
> 
> That is, microsoft.com has a strong connection to the
> Microsoft Brand.  Therefore, Mr. Rutkowski argues,
> .com should be recognized as an NSI brand.
> 
> That is formally the fallacy of composition:  attributing to
> all domain names that which is true of some.
> 
> By extension, Mr. Rutkowski's argument could support the
> proposition that since the "." (i.e., the "Unnamed" Root of
> the DNS) is part of NSI's brand and under NSI's dominion and
> control, NSI owns the root and can do whatever it pleases.
> 
> Of course, were it to do so, it would no longer have a colorable
> claim to the antitrust immunity that the US District Court accorded
> it in PGMedia v. NSI.  But if this is not true of the root zone, why
> should it be true of the TLD zones?
> 
> On the other hand, SLD zones are governed by a different rule,
> because (as RFC 1034 recognized) those zones are delegated to
> private parties for their own use.  
> 
> Whether this gets tagged with the label "ownership" or not is actually
> unimportant.  Every species of ownership is actually a bundle 
> of rights.
> I own an automobile, but that does not carry with it the 
> right to drive
> it on Fire Island National Seashore.  I own a home, but that 
> does not carry
> with it the right to manufacture solvents, glue, vitriol or 
> high explosives
> therein.
> 
> I have a set of well-known and identifiable rights stemming 
> from the delegation
> to me of "cybersharque.com."  I don't care whether you call 
> them ownership
> or not:  they are exclusively mine, I can sell them, pledge 
> them, use them to
> sell software, pornography, or legal information, &c.  But I 
> also would never 
> suggest that this zone delegation gives me any rights beyond 
> those conferred
> when the zone was delegated to me.
> 
> Likewise, NSI currently has a set of well-known and 
> identifiable rights stemming
> from the delegation of .com.  It just does not follow from 
> that delegation that NSI
> has rights in excess of those that were delegated to it.  The 
> idea that NSI already 
> has the right to hold .com in perpetuity is simply offensive. 
>  It is indistinguishable 
> from a steward pretending to own the property with which he 
> is entrusted.
> 
> KJC
> 
> <yada>
> 
> >>> "A.M. Rutkowski" <amr@netmagic.com> 08/18/99 10:11AM >>>
> Hi John,
> 
> The branding approach benefits everyone and comports
> most closely with Internet's existence as private
> shared network resources.  It may also be the only
> approach that would pass judicial scrutiny.
> 
> It's also entirely possible to have the two approaches
> coexist.  For example, the F.401 root exists right now.
> It is a public resource/trust system.  There are gateway
> arrangements between the two.  There is no reason that
> it couldn't be merged directly into the existing or
> a modified DNS.
> 
> Microsoft, I'm sure regards MICROSOFT.COM as its brand
> and it's right to maintain a DNS zone resolver for all
> hosts tagged using that domain name.  The ownership
> rights here get fuzzy, but these are always real world
> problems.
> 
> This actually works out particularly well for existing
> ccTLDs and users of those domains, because they also
> retain those brands.  Arguably, even for CORE for its
> exclusive TLD brands, it works out to its member benefits.
> 
> >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.
> 
> So who are you (individually or collectively) to tell them
> they don't have the right to do that on a shared private
> user network?  Many may well continue to prefer their
> COM brand name, others may not, most will probably do
> both.
> 
> The challenge here is not to have our pet personal
> world order prevail upon the world, but to find an
> arrangement that accommodates the views, rights,
> and legal systems of as many parties as possible -
> with an acceptable process for accommodating the
> rest.
> 
> cheers,
> 
> 
> 
> --tony 
> 
> **********************************************************************
> 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
> **********************************************************************
>