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

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Brad and all,

Brad Templeton wrote:

> 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).

  Exactly right.  And this is why TM law doesn't apply adequately to
domain names or TLD's.

>
>
> >   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).

  FCFS (Fist come First serve) like FIFO, is a unwritten axiom in Domain
Name registration until the ICANN BoD and staff without stakeholder
approval, decided to cow tow to special interests.

>
> >
> >   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).

  If you search the US TM database there are several categories of Marks
using the term Yahoo.  In a part of a domain name in this example, there
is no TM filed, nor is it possible for there to be currently as .yahoo is
a TLD in this example.  Erco, the DN is not trademarkable for two reasons.
One is that the term drugstore is a generic term.  the other is the .yahoo
is a TLD and therefore also not a trademarkable term.  Hence, the
right that Yahoo.com might try to enforce would be rejected.  And
should be.

>
> >
> >  .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.

dotCOM/.COM is branded.  But it's meaning to different individuals
or entities varies.  That is the beauty of non-generic terms.  They
can be branded, but if TLD's, cannot be Trademarked (US).

>
> >
> >  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.

  COM.  by itself is an abbreviation for commercial, not company BTW.
But dotCOM/.COM is not an abbreviation for anything.

>
> >
> > >
> > > 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.

  Yes it will.  And the fun or disruption will be the fault of the ICANN
BoD and staff for creating in the legacy/USG roots an already existing
TLD.

>
>
> >   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.

New.net and Ultranet seem pretty successful to me...

>

>  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.

  No I am not advocating or suggesting this.  But rather augmenting the current
legacy/USG root structure and registry structure is a healthy thing IOHO.

Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 118k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208



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