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

[Milton Mueller <mueller@syr.edu>]

The one entity that can be relied upon to police the registration policy is
the registry itself. If the registry has control (dare I say *proprietary*
control) over its zone files, and if it has an incentive to apply a specific
standard consistently, then it will do so. So, for example, the .bank idea
that was proposed would probably be very careful to make sure that only
legitimate banks were allowed to register within it, because it's reputation
as a bank-oriented registry would be at stake.

Of course, we do not want ICANN itself to be responsible for policing
registration criteria. That would turn it into a global Regulator of
Everything.

--MM

Karl Auerbach wrote:

> I personally find TLDs that have a defined purpose to be a waste of time.
>
> First off, does anybody seriously believe that the law of trade and
> service marks would allow there to be TLDs in which a mark holder would be
> allowed, at no risk to his/her mark, to *not* inquire whether a given
> character string was being used to infringe?
>
> Secondly, defined TLDs fail to recognize the Protean characteristics of
> modern life.  Is Deloitte and Touch a .CPA or a .GMBH or a .CONSULTANT or
> what?  And should the next Yahoo be stuck in .ANON simply because the two
> students who were playing around started there?
>
> To my mind purposed TLD's is like purposed marks -- like saying that
> people who make household cleaning products must name their products
> things like "Tide Household" and "Comet Household".
>
> Third, who is going to be the policeman and who is going to be the
> judge/jury?  We've seen the failure of policing even something as simple
> as .edu.  (And are universities that sell patent rights really solely
> .edu?)
>
>                 --karl--