ICANN/DNSO
DNSO Mailling lists archives

[wg-review]


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

[wg-review] Why is it BC and TMC Members don't want their own TLDs?


IMO if the BC and TMC Members had their own TLD's instead of a SLD in a
gTLD....
we wouldn't be having any problems ....

This is what they are wanting...exercisable control over their DOMAIN'...if
we are to believe their reasoning for the Constituencies Existing...

If [they] (all "large" businesses represented in the BC and/orTMC) were made
to run their own Top Level Domain and allowed 1 SLD .com (the exact Name of
their Main Company)

There could be [no] confusion...and they would only be fighting (very Little)
amongst themselves for the TLD...sure there would still be a few cases of
True cybersquatting in SLD of gTLDs but we wouldn't have the issue of
[similarity conflagration] to the extent that there is...or a need for a
(only half thought out) UDRP with non uniform decisions.

gTLDs to me mean just that Generic....anyone has the right to use them for
whatever they want...the SLD is their choice and since its' a SLD [not a TLD]

A Famous Mark company should be able (preferably made) to have a (Business)
bTLD or tmTLD [their Name or (TM) as their TLD].

Running their own TLD would be Cheaper in the long run than the (court and
legal fees) they expend under the present DN structure and Rules.

*if* you believe traditional trademark law is applicable to the net give them
a place on the net that it could be viewed reasonably as such.

Why have the BCs and TMC avoided this solution?

The (relatively small) Cost of running their own small TLD? No...I don't
think so...

There should be someone on this list that can answer this Question...
Karl?
Roeland?
Joop?
Ken S.?
Jefsey?
Kent?
MS?

Regards
Forrester Rupp




<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>