While I understand the desire to "control" sites that resolve to the name of
a sovereign state, I still regard this as a matter of "control" - part of a
process which closes down the variety and freedoms of the net.
For example, here in UK we have a long-established supermarket chain called
Iceland. They're legitimate, they're trademarked, they are bona fide.
It does not seem just to me that they will be excluded from using or
acquiring the name Iceland.[various endings] if they wish to use the
internet in this way.
I personally think it would be preferable to dedicate a TLD for national
governments, and let that TLD identify their sites as the official site for
that country. In this way, you broaden out the options instead of narrowing
them down. So the nation of Iceland's site could be found at: Iceland.state
(or whatever ending was designated).
It's the same with the whole IP issue. If businesses have a trademark and
want to identify their official site, then it would be better to designate a
TLD which identified their official status. So: Ford.reg (where .reg was
used to identify a trademarked site). Again, this would have the effect of
broadening out the freedoms of the net, and allowing Mr. Nobody Ford the
right to have a homepage at Ford.com if he managed to get the domain name.
It would also benefits countries and companies, in that they would not have
to defensively register domain names in an ever-increasing range of TLDs.
At the heart of this is "control" and the narrowing down of the internet. I
oppose the annexing of swathes of addresses, just because people claim a TM
(and the same applies to country names). Thousands of generic words are
annexed by companies just because of a trademark - and yet a domain name is
not meant to be a trademark at all.
As I say, it would be much better to designate purpose-driven TLDs which
identified eg: official country site; trademarked sites etc etc.
Take the word "Apple". There must be hundreds of companies with trademarks
on this name all over the world in different jurisdictions. What gives one
specific company the right to "annex" the name Apple, say, in the Sunrise of
a New TLD names release? What about the other 99 companies who also use that
name? But more importantly, what about the millions of people all over the
world for whom the word "Apple" is part of their day to day vocabulary, part
of their language.
I am unhappy with the closing off of any part of our language, with the
restriction of access to DNS which should be available to all users on a
first come first served basis.
The annexing of our language, the "control" instinct, is contrary to the
spirit of the internet.
Of course, if bad faith is demonstrable - if someone tries to pass
themselves off as the United States government at UnitedStates.com - then
that is a different matter. And then, that person should be pursued through
the courts. But if I am a 90 year old woman and American patriot, and just
happen to get the name UnitedStates.com when it drops, and if I choose to do
a great site all about my country and its history at my site, then I should
be allowed to... because an unknown 90-year-old woman is just as entitled as
the President of the United States to write about her country and run a site
that is relevant to her, and maybe many others, at an easy and recognisable
domain name address.
With the proliferation of New TLDs, we should be designating purpose-driven
endings which clearly identify official sites for: countries, places,
trademarked companies, etc etc.
To a large extent, the obsession with defensive registrations results from
having such a limited number of TLDs, and so conflicting parties scrabble
for 'ownership' of the limited namespace.
We should broaden choice, not narrow it down. We should keep addresses open
to the many, not annex them for the few.
yrs,
Richard Henderson
----- Original Message -----
From: <DannyYounger@cs.com>
To: <atlarge-discuss@lists.fitug.de>
Cc: <alac-comments@icann.org>; <vb@bertola.eu.org>;
<roessler-mobile@does-not-exist.net>
Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2003 6:40 AM
Subject: [atlarge-discuss] WIPO recommendations on IGOs and Country Names
> I hate to break into the reverie of election preparations with something
as
> mundane as a domain name issue, but the Names Council will be meeting in
> session on the 17th during which time they will take up the recent WIPO
> recommendations which have already been endorsed by the GAC -- the WIPO
> letter is posted at
> http://www.icann.org/correspondence/gurry-letter-to-cerf-lynn-21feb03.htm
>
> I have posted comments on the recommendation regarding International
> Inter-governmental Organizations at the following URL:
> http://www.babybows.com/IGO.htm
>
> You may wish to contact your constituency representatives (if you are a
> constituency member) or perhaps the Board-appointed members of the ALAC
with
> your own thoughts on this topic. The ICANN Board has requested final
input
> by May 12:
>
> Resolved [03.22] that Board hereby requests the President to
> inform the Governmental Advisory Committee, the Supporting
> Organizations, and the other Advisory Committees of the 21
> February 2003 letter from WIPO; to provide those bodies with
> a copy of the text of the letter; and to invite them to
> provide, no later than 12 May 2003, any comments they may
> formulate, according to their processes, concerning the
> matters discussed in the WIPO letter.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
> For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de
---
Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.463 / Virus Database: 262 - Release Date: 17/03/03