Re: [wg-c] straw vote -- question one results & call for votes on

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

Hi Chris,

> My problem with "adding a few now" revolves around the issue
> of those entities who do not get added.

To start off with, I think your jumping the gun, and starting to presume too
much...

> If we presume that the registry chooses its TLD, then we have
> a number of prospective registries who are not going to be able
> to compete in the first wave.

Ok, but we also had a number of registrARS that didn't get to be in the
testbed of NSI sharing either. We could call the initial addition a
"test-bed" if that makes you feel better...

> If we presume that ICANN chooses the TLDs and then bids
> the registries, we have a number of prospective registries who
> are excluded because of a created scarcity.

The nature of a tender is that the less suited are excluded... Whenever
ANYTHING is tendered for, there are "winners" and "losers" (maybe the wrong
terms, as some may find them politically incorrect). If we're tendering,
it's because we want the BEST to run the registry of the TLD, else we'd just
give them away...

> Additionally, if ICANN chooses the TLDs, and any of them
> are trademarks, that limits the registry that can run it to the
> holder of that trademark. Presume that IOD's .web and
> CORE's 5 trademarked TLDs are not eligible in this case,
> if one presumes that ICANN would not choose a trademarked
> TLD as a result.

Instead of using ".web" as the example (too much controversy over whether it
is or not trademarked as a TLD in an enforceable manner), let's use
something everyone can see what you mean by like ".coca-cola".
If we have a testbed, I would imagine that conlictive TLDs would be very
much avoided. Putting ".coca-cola" up for tender is just asking for trouble.
On the other hand, if ICANN would like to choose a combination of letters
that could create conflict, I would imagine they would consult with the
conflicting parties to ask them if they would agree to drop the matter.
If they want to add ".coca-cola" as a TLD, then I think it would be wise for
them to ask Coca-Cola Corp if that poses a problem to them...
In your particular case, ".web" is something that *you* say "belongs" to
IOD, and that you have a piece of paper proving it. There are so many
conditionals in that situation, that it makes a lot of fun and speculation
but doesn't go very far. Would that trademark "hold" if ICANN decided to
enter that TLD in the root? Would IOD be able to sue for control? If so,
would ICANN not just simply remove the offending TLD? Isn't the word WEB
just a common name with respect to the internet? With a direct statement
from IOD saying that they will "fight" for their trademark, I personally
would find it unlikely for ICANN to choose ".web" as a testbed gTLD...
(In any case, if it's trademarked, then by definition it's not a gTLD
-g=generic, generic=non-trademarkable).

> If, as some have suggested, CORE gives its 5 trademarks to
> ICANN, would CORE be willing to accept the possibility
> that another applicant would get the bid on those TLDs?

The way I've always understood what CORE is, is that it's a bunch of
registrars that wants ANY gTLDs available for them to register names in
them. They probably wouldn't give two hoots that these TLDs get run by a
company that wins a bid tendered by CORE themself or ICANN. In fact, if it's
ICANN that does the tendering, that takes work off CORE's back. In any case,
it doesn't look as if CORE is going to be doing ANY tendering anyway.
They just want TLDs in which their registrars can register (and have it done
in a fair way, with no registrar having some sort of dirty advantage over
another, and have guarantees that they will be able to continue registering,
etc...).

> What this boils down to, for me, is artificial scarcity.

For me it's rather prudence, and deciding not to throw all we can at it in
one go. We want to go to the moon, so let's launch a rocket to go there
straight away... Or rather, let's first go up and down safely, then circle
the earth, then go to the moon and back...

> If, on the other hand, we can agree that instead of a
> limited number we have a limited time frame - say one
> new TLD per month, we can then line up (by some fair
> method) new registries and begin adding a TLD per
> month. This gives plenty of time to recognize any
> problems and stop them before they proliferate.

Again more presumptions here... We haven't even agreed to how many/how fast,
and you're already lining up companies that want to run a registry.

> This also solves the problem of a trademarked TLD,
> as, for example, CORE might find itself second in
> line with one of its 5 trademarked TLDs, waiting
> patiently for 30 days to be added.

You're probably mistaking what CORE wants... But of course, it serves better
IOD to say "CORE wants '.firm' and IOD wants '.web'".

> As I've said before, presuming that the initial wave
> of registries is a reasonably small number, Image
> Online Design is perfectly willing to be last in line
> with its .web registry in this plan.

Nicely rounding it up with that claim to keep ".web" by IOD and demand it
gets added... It seems that for IOD, everything is negotiable as long as
they get to keep ".web" no matter what. Doesn't look to flexible to me. But
anyway, again jumping the gun... We are trying to discuss how many/how fast,
and you already agree to who gets what and on what terms.

Yours, John Broomfield.