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

[James Love <love@cptech.org>]

I would support the general thrust of Adam Megacz's comment.  However,
there should be space for exceptions.  .gov, .int, .edu and other
restricted domains are among the types of exceptions I am talking about,
as well as the .usbanks (the US FDIC proposed), or the .union proposal
(is .naa one of these?), and some others I have heard about but which
have not yet surfaced, in both the commerical and non-commerical (and
mixed) areas.  

In a sense, it would seem as though the general rule, for unrestricted
TLDs, would make sense as Adam has proposed.  However, the TLD space
should accommodate other management systems in the restricted TLD
space.   I don't think a one size fits all system is appropriate for all
of the TLD space.  Providing a framework for exceptions isn't trivial,
but I think it is quite important to do so.  

In the absence of a no ownership rule for the unrestricted TLDs, one
would have to think hard about hoarding and concentration issues, if the
TLD space becomes wide open.  I could imagine applications for millions
of TLDs by a single entity.  

 Jamie


megacz@cmu.edu wrote:
> 
> 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

-- 
=======================================================
James Love, Director           | http://www.cptech.org
Consumer Project on Technology | mailto:love@cptech.org 
P.O. Box 19367                 | voice: 1.202.387.8030
Washington, DC 20036           | fax:   1.202.234.5176
=======================================================