Re: [wg-c] Excellent suggestion from slashdot -- apparently not in 10-23 report

[Paul Garrin <pg@name-space.com>]

This is precisely the model put in place by Name.Space since 1996.
Please see http://name.space.xs2.net/policy

Old news, but good news.

regards,

Paul Garrin
Founder/CEO
Name.Space, Inc.
http://name.space
http://name.space.xs2.net


> 
> Forgive me if this is a FAQ; I'm new to the WG.
> 
> I can't take credit for what follows; I saw it on a slashdot.org
> comment, but the comment was moderated WAY down, so very few people
> probably read it.
> 
> Why not permit an unlimited number of TLD's, on the condition that
> nobody can *own* a TLD. Hence I can buy smith.family (and implicitly,
> *.smith.family), but NOT *.family. I would be able to do this even if
> nobody else had ever registered a name under the family TLD.
> 
> The nice part is that it brings the trademark dispute back into proper
> focus. Apple computer does NOT have a god-given right to everything
> with the word "Apple" on it -- they have a right to everything with
> the word "Apple" on it WITHIN THE CONTEXT of the personal computer
> industry. Hence, apple.computers would obviously belong to Mr. Jobs'
> company, while apple.landscaping would belong to the guy down the
> street who will redo your front yard. I'm not suggesting a new dispute
> resolution process; just a namespace change that would make dispute
> resolution infinitely simpler. AFAIK no other solution breaks down
> trademarks *by industry*, as the trademark law explicitly states (or
> if they do, they allow for a finite number of industries, which can
> become cumbersome in the future).
> 
> I dunno, I saw a lot of elegance in it. I read the 10-23 WG-C report,
> and Prop. B seems to come *close* to this, but doesn't step out and
> overtly state the fact that individuals could [implicitly] create new
> TLD's and that a TLD can't be *owned*.
> 
> Is this a FAQ, an idea currently being considered, or a new concept on
> this list? If there are any known problems with it, what are they?
> 
>   - aj
> 
> -- 
> "Nobody has any 'Rights'. We are entitled only to Liberties"
> Adam Megacz <megacz@cmu.edu> -- for current phone/postal, see
> http://www.cmu.edu/cgi-bin/finger?q=megacz@andrew.cmu.edu
>