Re: [wg-c] WG-C Report

[Jonathan Weinberg <weinberg@mail.msen.com>]

	1. It's true that the report devotes more space to why new gTLDs *should*
be created than to why they should not; that's because the report is an
explanation of why the WG believes that the arguments favoring new gTLDs
are sound and important, and that those opposing them are unsound or in any
event less weighty.  After I presented each argument opposing new gTLDs, I
tried to explain why the WG didn't find that argument convincing (I think
we'd be derelict in our duty if we*didn't* include those explanations).  If
there are specific ways in which the descriptions of the arguments opposing
new gTLDs should be reworded, in order to make them represent the arguments
more fairly, please submit them.

	2. I think there may be some confusion on the trademark points Justin
notes.  The report notes that an advantage of adding new TLDs is that it
presents the opportunity for *different* entities to register the same SLD
string in different TLDs.  The report recognizes that this will raise
important trademark issues that are properly addressed by "registry data
maintenance requirements, dispute resolution mechanisms and any other
device that ICANN may choose to adopt."  It notes that the proliferation of
open ccTLDs is problematic from a trademark standpoint, because ccTLDs
aren't bound by ICANN's trademark-protective mechanisms.   If there's an
inconsistency there, I'm missing it.

Jon



At 12:26 AM 3/11/00 -0800, Justin McCarthy wrote:
>What this newcomer doesn't like about the report is the
>blatant inequities that come to light in the section
>entitled "Arguments opposing the consensus" in coverage of
>the first issue of rough consensus. Just the nomenclature of
>this section alone undermines consensus opposing viewpoints.
>The bifurcation of the two arguments sections into a "pro"
>and "con" format, lead one to believe that equal
>representation is going to be given to "arguments
>supporting" and "arguments opposing". This is not the case.
>
>The arguments supporting the consensus position are made
>eloquently and passionately, and are fully expanded on. The
>arguments opposing weakly state a point and then immediately
>knock the point down. This doesn't seem balanced because,
>first of all, there's no (immediate) refute to each point
>brought up in the arguments in the support section and
>second, why should all of these refutations (which take up
>more text space than the actual arguments) even be in a
>section titled "arguments opposing consensus"? The net
>effect is to weaken the argument of the report by making it
>seem unbalanced or biased.  The opportunity to build ethos
>by fully understanding/mastering the opposing argument is
>neglected here.
>
>By the same token, there's an apparent contradiction that I
>feel compelled to point out. In paragraph #3 of the
>"Arguments Supporting" section of the first rough consensus
>issue, the report seems to be advocating new TLDs. This is,
>the report argues, so that new companies that desire the
>same word/phrase.com can compete through same word/phrase at
>a different TLD. In the paragraph after the next (#5) of
>that same section, the report argues against the rampant
>registrations of country TLDs because they are creating
>trademark infringement issues. Why would the introduction of
>secondary TLDs not invoke the same trademark issues?
>Perhaps the unique specificity/functionality of the newly
>proposed TLDs and the new, more selective
>registration/provable charter method need to be emphasized
>more here.
>
>Other than that (Mrs. Lincoln), I think this is a good
>report.
>
>
>