[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [IFWP] Market Structure Failure
Greg and all,
Greg Skinner wrote:
> jeff Williams <email@example.com> wrote:
> > Greg Skinner wrote:
> >> If I understand the ORSC position, the problem is a lack of gTLDs.
> >> The more you create, the less problem you have with trademarks,
> >> because for every trademarked name that exists, you have a TLD to put
> >> it in.
> > THis would be impossible I believe or at least improbable. But as I
> > understand the ORSC position, your statement doesn't sound
> >accurate, but that should be answered by the ORSC for better clarity.
> Perhaps I have misstated the ORSC position, but from what's been written
> so far, it seems the drive to create more gTLDs comes from the belief
> that you can create enough gTLDs to reduce significantly, if not eliminate
> the number of name conflicts that exist today.
This depends on what the rules are by which you can register a DN
within that gTLD. If there are no restrictions, than you will have more
potential for Trademark disputes given the current trend of Trademark
> These name conflicts arise
> because their are many organizations with a given name, but only a few
> can be assigned that name in the limited number of gTLDS available today.
> In addition, there have been other gTLDs that have been proposed, such
> as a .per TLD for personal registrations, an .xxx TLD for adult sites,
Ahhhhhhh! But you are talking about Chartered TLD's, that is a horse
of a different breed.
> No one seems to know just how many gTLDs need to be added in order to
> minimize the number of name conflicts. Furthermore, adding thousands
> of TLDs at once does not seem to have popular support among the
> Internet community. So for now, only a handful of TLDs will be added
> at a time. How does that significantly reduce the number of name
> conflicts? How long will it be before the number of TLDs is high
> enough that the likelihood of name conflict is small?
This depends on what "KIND" of "Chartered gTLD's" are created and
what the restrictions, specifically, are part of those Charters for those
> >> Also, the TM interests do not seem happy at the prospect of being
> >> forced to register in multiple TLDs (possibly paying inflated
> >> prices from cybersquatters) to protect their marks.
> > THey don't have to pay the cybersquatters anything. So I again
> > don't see your point here either.
> The companies who want their name in any TLD (or for that matter, any
> domain suffix) have to pay (or sue) the cybersquatters who've bought
> it. That's what I meant.
Why do they need to sue? in all cases? What would be their grounds
for suing? It it is a dilution problem, then they don't necessarily have to
sue in all cases. It it is a "Similar Name" concern, they likely do not
have a valid legal grounds on all cases for suing under current
> >> Is this decision ultimately going to be decided based on politics
> >> or not?
> > Good question. But remember the old political adage, MONEY is the
> > mothers milk of politics. Whomever spends the most, the most
> > wisely, gets their way.
> Well, this is the reason that I gave the Van Jacobson TCP slow-start
> solution to Internet congestion as an example, because it only cost a
> few minutes of programmer time per TCP implementation, as opposed to
> millions of dollars in network infrastructure.
Well I agree with you completely here. Bur there are some (IETF, IESG,
ICANN, IAB, and ISOC) that would disagree with you or would rather
"Control" what technical standards or technologies (Read Protocols),
that can be implemented, hence taking sometimes years to go through
an IETF RFC process, and thereby hampering development of better
and faster protocols.
Jeffrey A. Williams
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
Contact Number: 972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208