Re: [wg-c] S/K principles [Was: Working Group C agenda]

["Milton Mueller" <mueller@syr.edu>]

In response to Becar:

----- Original Message -----
>
> The problem will be the string, for example .union has a complete
different
> meaning in France (so in french) than in English !!!!!!! and may be it's
an
> insult in some other language...so Do we have the goal to invent a global
> language????????

This is not really a problem. The principle refers to the "marketing" of the
string. If it is marketed to and for labor organizations it would be
differentiated. "Dot Com" really doesn't mean anything to anyone by itself.
It has acquired "secondary meaning" through its association with web sites.
Same could happen with new TLDs. So in that respect, yes, we may be
inventing a global semantic.

BTW, this means that for the differentiation principle to be effective we
*must* give the owners of chartered TLDs the right to determine who can and
cannot register within their space, to define the criteria, and to enforce
the criteria (bearing in mind of course that they may not choose to enforce
any).

In response to Dawson:

> I do not think that the
> registry should be the ones who are tasked with the job of enforcement.
NSI
> has had always been "blessed" with the fact that it is untouchable. They
> are not in the enforcement business - and they never got dragged down that
> rat hole.

In fact, they do enforce the .edu criteria. More significantly, some
registries may WANT to enforce criteria for registration (Jamie Love clearly
does). NSI did not want to enforce any because it had no particular
incentive to do so for com net and org. Some registries will be commercial,
some won't.

> The UDRP and the courts should be the ones deciding on the
> enforcement based on the guidelines established in the charter.

UDRP only affects cybersqatting. So, yes, it is an effective answer to
trademark holders concerned about the impact of new TLDs on their marks, but
it cannot and was never intended to be used to make registrations conform to
particular criteria.

Suppose, for example, that a .enum registry for domain to telephone number
mapping registered a SLD that was not related to its function. That could
not be challenged under the UDRP.

> If the
> owner of the SLD is in violation of the charter - then the registry would
> be ordered by the court to revoke the name of the offender. But, the
> registry should not make these decisions on their own. If the UDRP does
not
> work --- than why even have it ???
>
>  > 4. These guidelines should not be read to impose overly bureaucratic
>  > procedures on registries.
>
> I agree (this should not be a numbered item - this should be at the head
of
> this list !!)
>
>  > 5. The selection of a gTLD string should not confuse net users, and so
>  > gTLDs should be clearly differentiated by the string and/or by the
>  > marketing and functionality associated with the string.
>
> I agree.
>
>  > 6. A gTLD should not unnecessarily increase opportunities for malicious
or
>  > criminal elements who wish to defraud net users.
>