Re: [wg-c] A branded TLD would be .nsi

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

IMPORTANT NOTE: I've reordered the answers to be along with the questions,
as I find it much clearer that way. If ANYONE feels I have somehow altered
the meaning of what it seems that everyone is agreeing at, then please shout
loudly!!! :-)
I also agree with the responses to those questions. let's go to specifics.
It is clear that there are very diverse opinions on who .web "belongs" to,
if indeed it belongs to anyone... We all seem to agree that (rather
unfortunately, but this is human nature), it will end up in the courts.
I actually find that 1 & 2 are the same thing really, so I presumer that it
will end up in court rather sooner than later.
If we take this as a given then with the special case of ".web", as it is
still for the courts to decide on how it should be done, or we can all
decide how we go to court on it, it is a thorny issue. We will NOT
realistically get consensus or anything near it on HOW it is (if ever) to be
implemented. Should we not wait for ANY TLDs where there is a company behind
saying "I WANT IT!" until the case of com/net/org gets settled before
pushing forward on it?
As question 4 would also come into it, and we have nowhere near a consensus
on that either (but I suspect it would be clearly linked to whatever the
courts decide), for *now* it would seem that the only stuff we can safely
add (from a not messing things up with courts, and nobody complaining about
them in particular) would seem to be gTLDs which nobody is claiming as
belonging to them or having a trademark over them, or is willing to concede
any rights perceived or otherwise to ICANN.
Personally I would like to see ".web" in the legacy roots, with rights
belonging to ICANN, being run on a shared registrar basis, with a
cost-recovery operation in the back, and being re-tendered on a regular
basis (1-5 years?). I imagine that Chris would like a ".web" owened (in as
restrictive or liberal sense as you wish) by IOD so that they can "play"
with it in as restricted or liberal sense that you wish, and keeping it for
ever. These don't seem to be very compatible, so until courts resolve (and
we all seem to agree that is where it would end), won't it be better to
consider the areas where it WON'T end up in the courts?
It seems that ALL of us accept the idea of back-end cost-recovery operations
for gTLDs. Some of us want other types of registries, some of us don't want
other types of registries, and from the analysis, it seems that the "other"
types of registries will just end up as a court case before moving forward.
Could we go forward on the ones we ALL accept (bar of course the part of the
TM lobby that says "READ MY LIPS, NO NEW TLDs")
The only reason I can find for NOT going forward on what nearly all of us
want is that those that want other types might want to play a sour grapes
type of game in that if they can't play the way they want to, then they
don't want anyone playing at all...

Yours John Broomfield.

P.S. Chris states that he agree with the points below, not with my statement
above, though maybe he'll also agree with my statement? (hopefully).

> I find that I, too, agree with these points.
> Christopher Ambler
> >

1.  Whether .com is today a trademark of NSI;
2.  Whether .web is today a trademark of CORE or IOD or no one;
[mixed questions of law, better left to the courts]
3.  Whether TLD suffixes can theoretically function as trademarks;
[It is certainly possible to posit a set of facts where a TLD suffix
functions as a TM (the easiest being to take an existing TM - .mci,
the other being taking an arbitrary term, .xyz, and ICANN or whoever
decrees that only X can be the register/registrar of .xyz).]
4.  Whether TLD suffixes should as a matter of DNS policy be allowed to
    function as trademarks.
[This is a DNS policy question]