| | At Large Membership and Civil Society Participation in ICANN |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
|
NewTLDs : The Long and Winding Road
|
Log in/Create an Account
| Top
| 51 comments
|
Search Discussion
|
|
|
|
The Fine Print:
The following comments are owned by whoever posted them.
We are not responsible for them in any way.
|
|
 |
Ben,
You had on #1. Lost me on #3.
#3 is probably the leading cause of #1 not happening. Defensive registrations kill a namespace.
A good part of the names of fortune-1000 are dictionary words, common surnames, or shared by numerous unrelated businesses.
The objective of new tld's should be to distribute registrations among more users, not aggregate them within the f-1000.
|
|
|
|
[ Reply to This | Parent
]
|
|
|
|
Re:Quantitative Methods of TLD Evaluation
by Anonymous
|
|
|
|
|
Bingo! Thank you for pointing out that defensive registrations are a prime example of why DNS should not be used as a TM index. It was not designed for that purpose and allowing it negates the very reason for having more TLDs available in the name space.
Ben has already pointed out that domains are not used for just the WWW and we all know that the WWW is not the internet, but one of many protocols.
Let the landrush happen. Special intersts have always had recourse for an abused trademark. Because of the IP defensive craze, there has been landslide of ridiculous global decisions pitting individuals from many countries against one another. Trademarks have no business in the DNS and TLDs have no business policing them.
|
|
|
|
[ Reply to This | Parent
]
|
| |
|
|
Certainly a new .INFO, for example, is of little use if every existing .COM registrant claims the corresponding .INFO. Then .INFO is merely a tax on existing .COMs -- making .COM registrants worse off, .INFO registrars/registry better off (revenue earned), consumers probably slightly worse off (someone has to pay for the registrations in the long run). So excessive defensive registrations, and the TLDs that encourage them, are a negative.
But what of a TLD with little or no defensive registrations? If two TLDs were truly the same in every other way, and if the TLD string itself were relatively generic ("INFO" or "WEB" makes the point just fine), wouldn't we feel better about a system that allocated microsoft.info to Microsoft, not a warehouser who also has 500 other names? Surely we don't think it's good for Microsoft to have to pay lawyers some thousands of dollars, and WIPO as much again, to retake the disputed domain later on. Again, I truly mean to run this analysis all else equal -- putting aside the other effects that such policies might have. And of course I choose Microsoft for a particular reason -- Apple (being a dictionary word), Ford (being a person's last name), etc. are clearly somewhat different.
|
|
|
|
[ Reply to This | Parent
]
|
| |
Privacy Policy: We will not knowingly give out your personal data -- other than identifying your postings in the way you direct by setting your configuration options -- without a court order. All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their
respective owner. The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008 by ICANNWatch.Org. This web site was made with Slashcode, a web portal system written in perl. Slashcode is Free Software released under the GNU/GPL license.
You can syndicate our headlines in .rdf, .rss, or .xml. Domain registration services donated by DomainRegistry.com
|
