Re: [wg-c] S/K principles

[James Love <love@cptech.org>]

Philip Sheppard wrote:
> 
> The debate on the nature of competition and whether the differentiation
> principle curtails competition is a key debate. The basic point of
> disagreement seems to be as follows:
> 
> Is the strongest competitor to dot com a replica of dot com or something
> that is different to dot com?
> 
> The replica argument is that dot com has a privileged position today and
> needs a competitor with a similar position. But this answers just one aspect
> of competition. Competition is dynamic and time is another aspect. Dot com
> has first mover advantage. A replica will be always be weaker. The market
> will consider it second best unless the competitor offers something more.

    Frankly, I think that .com is a pretty dull last name.  .biz doesn't
do much for me either.  I can see why people are fighting over .web.  I
would guess it would be popular, and maybe even more popular than .com
for new registrations.  .global, .world. .zone, .new, .nouveau, .nuovo,
or .nuevo .etc might work pretty well too.  I'm not a market expert, but
I certain think .com isn't "winning" because it is such a cool name.

> 
> The differentiation argument recognises that strong competition comes from
> the new entrant offering something better - "value added". Consider, any
> off-line example. Do car manufacturers produce copies or do they try to make
> better cars in the same category?
> Do brands of soap powder claim to be the same or better than each other by
> way of formulation?
> 
> The differentiation principle seeks to ensure competition to dot com will
> add value to the name space not imitation. Dot com's key advantage is that
> it is first mover. Its key weakness is that it lacks differentiation, it
> leads to confusion, it is known as the home of the international bank but
> also the pornographer. Different can be wide or narrow. That is the choice
> of the registry. There is nothing in the latest Weinberg draft of the
> principles to stop .web, .biz  or .naa so long as their proponents have an
> idea about what they want to achieve with these names. We have the
> opportunity to move away from the anarchy of dot com. Lets take it.
> Philip


    I really think the addition of differentiated domains will be very
important.  There is a problem, however, with the perception that a
.flowers TLD will not expand the name space very much, given the huge
demand for new name space.  So when you talk about 6 to 10 TLDs,
including non-commerical TLDs, and we talk about .usedcars or .flowers,
then it seems as though no one will do anything about the NSI monopoly
(or the ccTLD cartel).  

    There is a big anticompetitive/antitrust issue here.  And I don't
think ICANN can act to protect 
monpolies and cartels without some criticism.  Indeed, we have asked the
FTC to look at this issue, and I can report that the FTC is in fact
looking at this issue.  

   Now, I do recognize the existing trademark owners have an issue with
protecting their trademarks in the .com  clone space.  Not only the big
fish, but small fish too.  I think that Xmission.com has a pretty
legitimate concern about protecting the use of Xmission, which is hardly
a generic term.  Maybe there are ways of addressing this in the .com
clone space that go beyond the UDRP.  

    What I would do for the test bed, is to have each applicant for the
test bed make their own proposals for how they would deal with the
trademark issues.  Maybe they will come up with some good ideas, and the
testbed could also be a testbed for this.
  
  Jamie


=======================================================
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
=======================================================