[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[wg-c] WG-C Report
Dear Jon,
Thank you for your efforts to put together the Report of the
WG C.
However, I can not - for a number of reasons - support the
same.
* The report mainly ignores the difficulties
that trademark owners will face in attempting to protect their names, marks and
domain names in multiple TLD's. I have all the time supported the "go
slow" approach, as I am convinced that adding a large number of new gTLDs
will only lead to more problems for companies and create a boon for
cybersquatters and domain name speculators (a cybersquatter smart enough not to
make an offer). While large famous trademark owners may (and "may" is
the word) be able to use the UDRP and/or anti-cybersquatting legislation to
thwart the hijacking of their names and marks, smaller trademark owners will
have just as many problems as they have today.
* Under "Discussions within the working group" it is
mentioned that "a substantial number of working group members did not cast
votes", but nothing is said about the reason for this silence. As you will
recall, the Names Council recommended the WG C to be reconstructed in September
1999, as the NC had noticed the WGs "high traffic and limited
progress" and concluded that the working group's structure was "not
adequate to carry out the substantive work of the DNSO". Thus, it seemed
pointless to participate in a vote during the reconstruction period. Also, a
significant numbers of WG C members, not only the ones representing IP-interests
have argued that the question of "how many" should not be raised until
we have answers on "how". I am well aware of the fact that the initial
rollout of 6-10 new gTLDs are supported by 44 members of the WG C - on the other
hand, the working group has currently "more than 140
members"...
* I can not agree with your description of the regulations for
ccTLDs in general. The fact is still that a majority of the ccTLDs have rather
strict regulations stating that you can not register a domain name unless you
have a corresponding company name or trademark registration.
* As to "ongoing work" - the question of
"how": It is my opinion that it should be the task of ICANN to decide
on the set of new gTLD strings (and, if we have to stick to the
"6-10", rather 6 than 10) and then solicit applications from would-be
registries, or existing registries, to run those TLDs. Having ICANN retain
control of the adoption of any new gTLDs would not only further the specific
purposes for which it was formed, but would also enable ICANN to formulate gTLD
strings that will help domain name owners and users, trademark owners and
different members of the public to distinguish among identical domain name
registered in different TLDs.
Best regards,
Petter Rindforth
Groth & Co / Enderborg Trademarks
Sweden