Re[4]: [wg-c] is this really the work we have before us?

["William X. Walsh" <william@dso.net>]

Sunday, August 22, 1999, 11:15:29 PM, John Charles Broomfield <jbroom@manta.outremer.com> wrote:


>> > The point of this particular argument is an attempt (very long shot anyway)
>> > to somehow prove that regular re-bidding of registry operators for any given
>> > TLD is a terrible idea.
>> 
>> > The argument goes like this:
>> > You have to invest millions to market "your" (horrible word there, watch
>> > out) gTLD. You have to invest millions in equipment and staff to get it up
>> > and running (apparently from day one, with no return guarantee, instead of
>> > -as with NSI- building up as you need to deliver heavier services). So,
>> > given all that, no company in the world in its right senses would EVER bid
>> > on a tender that demands a re-bid 5 years later, despite the obvious
>> > benefits that this would give the rest of the community.
>> 
>> You know, you have a real point here.
>> 
>> As a matter of fact, lets carry it to its logical conclusion.
>> Automobiles are a mainstay of our societies.  Rather than let the
>> automobile manufacturers maintain their ability to be the builder and
>> sales outlet for a particular design they developed and invested in,
>> they will only get that right for xx years, after which continued
>> manufacture and sale will be rebid to the lowest bidder.

> As approached by you, the argument of course will look ridiculous, but the
> simple question that must be answered so that we can all know which side of
> the argument is this:

> Can companies invent gTLDs and have them as their own property?
> If yes, then of course, the argument is as you indicate, like the one of car
> makers with their models.
> If no, the we are on my side of the argument, in that the g in gTLD means
> GENERIC, and as such no particular company can claim the right to it.
> If we have both sides "yes" and "no", as in "generics are generics and
> cannot be owned, but trademarks could be converted into TLDs, and would be
> owned", then we have the question of should trademarks be allowed to exist
> as TLDs?

> I am very strongly of the opinion that GENERICS should not be "given away". I
> feel very strongly that a term like "web" is very much a generic, and
> therefore I find it ridiculous for it to be claimed in ownership by a
> company.
> I am also very strongly against the idea of letting trademarks exist as
> TLDs, because I believe that just puts the ".com" problem one step higher
> because every company would prefer to have its own TLD and eliminate the
> messy bits at the end (messy bits like ".com" or ".fr" or ".uk" or ".net" or
> even ".web").

We are arguing over semantics. The contract can specify that the only
"right" they are getting is the right to operate the registry for this
TLD for as long as they remain in compliance with their contract.


--
William X. Walsh - DSo Internet Services
Email: william@dso.net  Fax:(209) 671-7934
Editor of http://www.dnspolicy.com/

(IDNO MEMBER)
Support the Cyberspace Association, the 
constituency of Individual Domain Name Owners 
http://www.idno.org