Re: [wg-c] Pre-sold TLDs

[Karl Auerbach <karl@CaveBear.com>]

> ICANN wouldn't be cancelling an exisitng contract, it would be refusing to
> recognize obligations to which it was not a party.

No doubt that it can do that.  However, the question is whether it would
be a legitimate thing to do.

The first question in my mind is how this would at all be considered
"technical coordination".  I personally find the issue of recognition of
previous obligations of operators of new TLDs in the ICANN root to be a
matter with absolutely no technical content whatsoever.

The second question in my mind is how this comports with ICANN's de facto
monopoly over DNS.  (Competitive roots, although possible and, in my view,
very potentially valuable and lucrative, are today really not very
viable.)

If ICANN claims immunity from monopoly concerns as a result of its
government umbrella, I would wonder where the government agency involved
has the statutory power to grant such a monopoly right to make what, as I
mentioned above, is a purely policy decision that is devoid of any
technical content.

If, on the other hand, ICANN were to eschew its goverment umbrella, then I
perceive this proposed rule as being not very different than if Microsoft
were to require that any seller/licensor of Microsoft software not
sell/license Linux.  In both instances, it would be an abusive use of
market position.

As an aside - since I am already in IOD's version of .web, I would
strongly object to ICANN interfering with my agreement with IOD.

I would suggest that those who are concerned about not having a position
for their marks in extension TLDs follow tried and true economic methods -
they should now - today, this afternoon - go to all the extension TLD
operators, and register their marks for the relatively small fees that the
extension TLD operators are charging.

To my mind, any prudent mark holder who is serious about protecting its
marks ought to spend a few dollars to register its names in any and all
extension TLDs as soon as possible rather than hoping for some untested
and possibly flawed protective scheme to evolve out of ICANN's working
groups.

		--karl--