[wg-c] No Specific Recs

[Justin McCarthy <justinmac@uswest.net>]

Jon,

In general, I agree with you. I realize that more of the
report space should be devoted to arguments in favor, since
that's the wg-c recommendation, but I think you've
misunderstood me. I was referring to the amount of text
space and equity of representation strictly within the
section entitled "Arguments Opposing the Consensus
Position". In this section I agree that it's important to
treat and debunk each of the arguments opposed, as you've
done.

It's difficult for me to nitpick the text and offer specific
suggestions since it's all really a question of degree and
tone. I wasn't present during discussions so I assume that
this is the extent of the debate that was actually had.
Although, in general, I think the first of the three
arguments in the "Arguments Opposed..." section is presented
more equitably than the other two. (But who are the
"Intellectual Property constituency members?" They must be a
smaller lobby than the "New Registry constituency members.")

As far as your second point goes, you are correct--I should
have read closer--there is no contradiction. I guess my
confusion on the issue comes from my not being able to find
a satisfactory answer to the following question: If the
intent of new TLD's is to offer competing business the same
SLD string in a different TLD, doesn't this automatically
imply trademark issues? There will be a mad dash to
trademark all the good SLD strings. Companies like
Nameprotect.com and Automark are making it extremely easy
and cheap (under $400 total) to trademark a name. On the
other hand, I guess even the Patent and Trademark Office's
several loose requirements and the $400 will be some sort of
a barrier to the majority of cybersquatters.

-Justin