[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [IFWP] Market Structure Failure

Stef and all,

Einar Stefferud wrote:

> Hello Gregbo -- You ask...
> }I guess I have never really understood the ORSC position on new TLDs,
> }because it doesn't seem to me that it makes the TM problems go away
> }for quite some time, if ever.
> Well, it is very simple!  More TLDs make it easier for parties to
> share the use of given SLD names, each under a distinctly different
> TLD, so the faster we add new gTLDS, the faster we will solve the
> conflict problems, and conversely, the slower we go the slower we
> solve the conflict problems.

  FIrst Stef, lets look at what Gregbo said.  It was a statement not a
as you characterize it.  Second, you answer or retort has merit but is
gross over simplification and really does not address the central issue
but rather does address a possible consideration towards a potential
solution depending on whether the TM interests view it.  I would doubt
rather seriously, based on already known rancor of the TM interests of
late, that the TM interests (Read legal community), would view your
proposed solution in a very positive light or even a valid migration
what they would view as a reasonable solution.

> The wierd part of this whole issue is that the TM forces seem to be
> dead set against the DNS being allowed to have numerous TLD categories
> like the TM "industry" has, which would allow the same SLD name to be
> unabiguously used by different parties with different TLDs, just
> because the same SLD with a differnet TLD is in fact a distinctly and
> distinctively different name.

  We have had the discussion and debate regarding "Categories" of
TLD's.  It is very unlikely and legally arguably a reasonable or acceptable

solution to the TM interests concerns.  However in that there are not
stead fast globally established and enforceable legal standards for TLD's
and Domain Names within a particular TLD name space, this point is
more moot than not.

> So, the mystery of what is the ORSC "policy postion" is that ORSC
> advocates opening up the root to as many TLDs as the market wants.
> No more, no less!  And sooner rather than later!

  Agreed.  However it must be understood that "Chartered TLD's"
are not the solution as they represent a closed and restrained
reaction, and as such puts in question a potential restraint of
trade condition.

> Because the lack of gTLD names is THE CORE PROBLEM!

  CORE, is defiantly the at the ROOT (No pun intended) of the
problem here.  I will leave all of you to read between the lines here.

> Cheers...\Stef
> >From your message Tue, 16 Feb 1999 09:59:28 -0800 (PST):
> }
> }Einar Stefferud <Stef@nma.com> wrote:
> }
> }>And, when this reality dawns on [TM interests], they will see that
> }>more TLDs will in fact solve their problems by providing lots of
> }>qualifiers and differentiators.  How many "qualifier" categories does
> }>TM law already recognize?
> }
> }Good question.  When I brought up the subject sometime back, the
> }responses suggested that there were (potentially) hundreds of
> }thousands of qualifiers.  Marks are registered geographically,
> }according to the type of business, etc.
> }
> }>Why should DNS have any fewer the TM?  Why not lots more?
> }
> }We have had this discussion before (and never seem to be able to
> }resolve it).  There are serious concerns as to how well DNS will work
> }with hundreds of thousands of TLDs.
> }
> }Furthermore, are TLDs exclusive in nature?  If so, what happens when a
> }business expands into another area?  Are they forced to move to a more
> }inclusive TLD (assuming one exists)?  Are they forced to register in
> }multiple TLDs?  What happens if their names are in use in the target
> }TLDs?
> }
> }What stops TM interests from taking people in any TLD to court?  It's
> }not as if all the "qualifying mark" TLDs will be created
> }instantaneously.  Until enough TLDs are created to sufficiently
> }qualify a business (assuming that ever happens), there is still a real
> }concern that TM interests will continue to fight for the names they
> }want to protect.
> }
> }I guess I have never really understood the ORSC position on new TLDs,
> }because it doesn't seem to me that it makes the TM problems go away
> }for quite some time, if ever.
> }
> }--gregbo


Jeffrey A. Williams
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number:  972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208