Re: [icann-europe] Recommended Reading: Brad Templeton on ICANN and the DNS

[Brad Templeton <brad@templetons.com>]

On Thu, Jul 12, 2001 at 09:14:44PM -0700, Jeff Williams wrote:
> Brad and all,
> 
>   Well either it is descriptive or it isn't.  As to the "Purity" is a matter of
> subjective conjecture.
> 
But well defined.  Purely descriptive names can't be owned under trademark
law.  Trademarks tend to be a combination of non-descriptive (brand) and
category (context).

>   Not necessarily.  I could mean, and to me it does mean, commercial
> drugstore information may be contained within.  I does not necessarily
> give me that idea that this domain name is related to a "Single" company
> at all.  Does webmd.com indicate that it is web medical company?  No
> I don't think it does in some peoples minds.  It may in others.  Again
> a matter of very questionable and debatable subjective conjecture.

What matters is that nobody else can have drugstore.com, and that the public
does indeed come to both type in ordinary words with .com expecting to find
"the" company (at least the main one) and they also have value because they
convey you got there first (or paid off the one who did).
> 
>   PArtly branded?  How does one "Partly Brand" a thing or entity?

A name like drugstore.yahoo contains a generic part, and the name of a branded
directory (yahoo).
> 
>  .COM is branded.  But it is not branded as meaning "Company"...  But
> rather as Commercial.

That's not branded, that's the opposite of branded.  It is now generic.
> 
>  Pay whom?  How is the price set?  Whom determines the price?
> ect, ect....

It's detailed on my web sites.
>   Yes if you wanted to phase out .COM.  I see no good reason to do that
> presently.

Ideally you phase out .com because it has a generic term (abbreviation for
commercial) and nobody should have that, to be fair.  You can also be fair
by putting some sort of compensating penalty on .com.
> 
> >
> > The problem is multiple roots don't work.
> 
>   Oh?  New Net works just fine for me and 16m other users.  ORSC works
> just fine for me, and unknown growing number of others, as does ULTRANET,
> and a host of others.

Right now the roots are not trying to contain different servers for the
same TLD.   When the new .biz comes it will cause some fun.

>   According to the ICANN BoD and staff, there are no "Owners" of TLD's.
> Only registries that have an "ICANN accreditation" to manage a TLD registry.

Yes, we're talking about replacing or changing ICANN here....
> 
> > Nor will they ever.  They can be replaced, if the will to replace them
> > develops in the internet community, and by that I mean the key people at
> > the dozen largest ISPs.
> 
>   As you know or should know this is already underway, and has been for some
> time now.

Yes, but all attempts have failed.  That doesn't mean one might eventually
win, but I really doubt that, for example, people would want to replace
icann with new.net or any other org that simply wants to be the next ICANN
with a few tweaks.

-- 
To unsubscribe, e-mail: icann-europe-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
For additional commands, e-mail: icann-europe-help@lists.fitug.de