Re: Suggestions (Re: [wg-c] Schwimmer Post From Last Week )

["Mark C. Langston" <skritch@home.com>]

On 21 December 1999, "Sportack, Mark A, CSCIO" <msportack@att.com> wrote:

>I agree with your assessment of chartered TLDs, and firmly believe that they
>represent an excellent way to tap the vast potential of the Internet's
>namespace. I would be willing to further explore the notion of chartered
>TLDs, as well as any procedures/mechanisms/policies that may be necessary to
>ensure the TLD's user community is consistent with its charter. I welcome
>your input on this matter as I believe it holds substantial potential. 

I'd be glad to provide it.

>
>However, I think it might be beneficial to you if I explained the dilemma
>that big companies are in wrt namespace expansion. Contrary to your
>suggestion, big companies (AT&T, at least!) aren't interested in
>monopolizing their trademarks/names/etc. in every single TLD that is
>created. They may engage in such activity, but only for defensive purposes.
>For example, in a recent exercise, I uncovered more than a dozen instances
>of SLD/TLDs that constituted trademark infringement against AT&T's name and
>brands. All of these instances involved individual people/small companies
>that were not affiliated with AT&T using either the name, brands, or other
>forms of obvious AT&T-owned intellectual property for their own purposes.
>Some of these names resolved to porno sites, others to on-line gambling, and
>one even resolved to a banner offering the name for sale. None of these
>sites were affiliated with AT&T, nor enhanced AT&T's brand image or
>reputation. AT&T must defend itself against such abusive and illicit uses of
>its name/brands. Other trademark holders experience similar problems. Many
>companies, in the absence of a better alternative, simply register their
>name in every available namespace to preclude such abuses. Thus, I submit
>for your approval, that big companies do, indeed, register redundant domain
>names across different TLDs. However, they do so to protect their brands
>from an all-too-familiar pattern of abuse. 
>

I understand this position, and I can even sympathise with it.  From
my perspective -- that of an individual who owns domain names -- I
fear that one day some corporation will come and force me to
relinquish my domain names, although I:

* Have not attempted to sell them,
* Do not run commercial services under them,
* Do not use them to confuse anyone regarding any product

I am also fearful of the free-speech implications of such actions
(fair use, parody, criticism, et al), and the growing sense that such
individual uses will be "legislated away" if we keep going the way we
are.

When you think about it, it all boils down to this: Companies and
individuals are both afraid of each other within the namespace because
each can do these sorts of things to the other.  If we were to draw a
clear line, and say, "All mark holders will register their domain
names in this and only this TLD (or set of TLDs), and all entities who
qualify under these criteria will register over here", and *ensure*
that there is mutual exclusivity among the domains (string literals
enforced with charter criteria), then everyone's fears can abate.  The
corporations do not have to worry about mark infringement, because
non-commercial TLDs would prohibit any use of a name that would
qualify it for infringement (in the legal sense).  In a sense, TLDs
would have an acceptable-use policy, that could be viewed as a form of
dispute resolution: If someone believes a domain is infringing, it can
be challenged, and if found to infringe, the registrant loses the
domain name.

Here, however, this diverges from the DRP's we've seen to date;
Instead of the domain being given to the mark owner, it goes pack into
the pool.  Because there are always non-infringing uses of even
identical marks, there will always be someone who can benefit from
that name.  This would help put an end to the sweeping march of the
.coms across all other TLDs, while at the same time helping to keep
costs down for mark holders.  It would also ensure the largest
possible pool of domain names for everyone.


>Also, I'm not certain I understand your claim about "private" TLDs. To
>continue your analogy, if porsche registered cars.porsche, then one could
>argue that .porsche is a private TLD. I mean, it wouldn't make much sense
>for any other auto maker to register within that TLD, so it must be private.
>Right? Perhaps you meant SLD... 
>

Sorry, I wasn't clear.

The example you give above, with .porsche, is exactly my argument
against continuing the current trend:  If we do, all TLDs become
irrelevant, and we may as well just make the SLDs the new TLDs.

When I referred to a "private" TLD for commercial interests, I was
specifically referring to a chartered TLD in which only verified
commercial interests may register a domain.  No non-commercial
interest could register.  This would reduce the space that the mark
holders have to police, and would also open the door to a DRP that
could be applied specifically within a TLD, instead of across all
TLDs.  Because if the use is strictly commercial, and the name
infringes, then the case that the infringing use is illegitimate
becomes stronger (but not iron-clad, since different regions of the
world, and different areas of commerce, may share identical but
legally non-infringing names).  Either way, the protections that must
be built into the DRP to protect every possible potential registrant
(which have been the source of much contention) can be altered
somewhat, because there's no possibility that a non-commercial,
information-only, individual holds a domain name there.  The DRP for
that chartered TLD (or that set of TLDs) can be written to be more
inline with commercial interests.

Likewise, since there won't be the fear of reverse-hijacking by
corporations within non-commerical namespace, the DRPs can be written
for those TLDs to more accurately reflect the registrants there.

This does away with the "one size fits all" DRP, which I think just
tries to spead itself too thin to be effective.


Also, a related note: Christopher Ambler and Roeland Meyer were
concerned about letting the registrars choose their own business
model.  I'd like to point out that I'm not recommending chartered TLDs
to the exclusion of other, registrar-chosen models.  I think both can
operate side-by-side.  However, I do believe that there is a distinct
need for a set of chartered TLDs with tight controls, in which 
everyone can participate, and everyone can benefit.


-- 
Mark C. Langston
mark@bitshift.org
Systems Admin
San Jose, CA