RE: [wg-c] voting on TLDs

["Winer, Jonathan" <JWiner@alston.com>]

For a lawyer type as I am, Kevin Connolly's tripartite (and lawyerly) scheme
is very helpful, as it clarifies where the core of our concern is: part
three.

Current perceived problems with identity theft have helped to spawn
legislative schemes in dozens of states, designed to limit the free flow of
information online through a variety of restrictive (though pro-privacy)
measures that could for instance require explicit further permissions from
message originators before repostings.

Intentional misappropriations of famous names (or even less famous ones,
like ours) can cause a wealth of malicious mischief, and in turn generate
potential governmental regulatory and enforcement responses that many
members of this working group might consider intrusive and unwise. It would
be desirable if this group can develop an approach to gTLD expansion that
discourages rather than facilitates such activity. 


-----Original Message-----
From: Kevin J. Connolly [mailto:CONNOLLK@rspab.com]
Sent: Monday, March 13, 2000 11:31 AM
To: wg-c@dnso.org
Subject: RE: [wg-c] voting on TLDs


 "Roeland M. J. Meyer" <rmeyer@mhsc.com> wrote (03/12/00 12:10PM )

>Gawd, I hate to agree with Dave on anything these days, but;
>
>---- Dave Crocker, Monday, March 06, 2000 8:45 AM
>The concern for stability has been present from the start of discussions
>about gTLD expansion, roughly five years ago.  It has covered:
>
>         1.  Technical and operational impact on the root
>
>         2.  Administrative and operational capabilities of registries
>
>         3.  Disruption due to legal distraction from the trademark
>community.
>
>A significant problem coming from any one of these 3 different directions
>will render the DNS unstable.  The record of listing and discussing these 3
>categories of concern is massive and public.
>
>---- Roeland M.J. Meyer, Sunday, March 12, 2000 0900 hrs.
>What Dave fails to mention here is that most of the triggers for those
>discussions were Dave Crocker and Kent Crispin repeatedly raising the same
>issues over and over again, just as they have done here, 

You forgot me again :-S  More importantly, when has the validity of an
observation been dependent on the fact that only a few sane voices
bring it up for consideration?

>although number
>three is recent, since ICANN, and a valid concern. 

Nope.  The #1 reason why the GTLD-MOU tanked was opposition from the
trademark community.

>The result is as Dave
>says, items 1 and 2 are massively covered. Item 1, particularly has been
>pounded to the point that the dead horse is only a memory. Item 2 is an
>issue with a vetting process, and is not effected by item 1. Item 3 is a
>policy jurisdictional issue which we have no power to effect (nor do the
>folks in WG-B).

Nope.  We have the power (indeed, the duty) to make it clear that the
addition of new TLDs will not be allowed to become an occasion for 
new and more injurious forms of cybersquatting.

As was observed at the Small Business Administration Roundtable
on Domain Names (March 1, 2000), continued ignorance of the 
political power of the trademark community and its continuing
concern that the dothead community will not take their legitimate
interests into consideration will foredoom the whole process of adding
new TLDs to failure.  Perhaps the production of failure is, sub rosa, the
objective of more than a few of the participants in the domain name
wars.

Kevin J. Connolly
The opinions expressed are those of the author, not of Robinson Silverman 
Pearce Aronsohn & Berman LLP
This note is not legal advice.  If it were, it would come with an invoice.
As usual, please disregard the trailer which follows.

**********************************************************************
The information contained in this electronic message is confidential
and is or may be protected by the attorney-client privilege, the work
product doctrine, joint defense privileges, trade secret protections,
and/or other applicable protections from disclosure.  If the reader of
this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified
that any use, dissemination, distribution or reproduction of this com-
munication is strictly prohibited.  If you have received this communi-
cation in error, please immediately notify us by calling our Help Desk
at 212-541-2000 ext.3314, or by e-mail to helpdesk@rspab.com
**********************************************************************

NOTICE:  This e-mail message and all attachments transmitted with it may contain legally privileged and confidential information intended solely for the use of the addressee.  If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any reading, dissemination, distribution, copying, or other use of this message or its attachments is strictly prohibited.  If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately by telephone (404-881-7000) or by electronic mail (postmaster@alston.com), and delete this message and all copies and backups thereof.  Thank you.
=======================================================