| | At Large Membership and Civil Society Participation in ICANN |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
|
(Belated) Response to Tim Berners-Lee on New TLDs
|
Log in/Create an Account
| Top
| 17 comments
|
Search Discussion
|
|
|
|
The Fine Print:
The following comments are owned by whoever posted them.
We are not responsible for them in any way.
|
|
 |
"I do not understand why you would want to make individual items part of the structure? At the moment all I have to remember is the company name of the website I am searching for, then .com or .co.uk as I am in the UK. Elegant, easy, simple, logical."
Sorry guys - your logic is most definately wrong.
As you know - most companies share the same words with others.
e.g. "Apple" used by many - including computer, tobacco, music companies.
Like I say on WIPO.org.uk - "It is legally used by thousands of businesses - large and small all over the world. Indeed, it is impossible that they all register themselves as trademarks - they are bound to conflict with many others, being confusingly similar. In my local phone book alone, there are at least five using this word - two garages (seems not connected), a car centre, fruit growers and a decorating firm."
So - with all these countries (with billions of people and millions of businesses) - will reducing the legal address to one/two words (or a few initials) for the use of trademarks be the act of:
(a) Intelligent persons.
(b) Lobotomised monkeys (vacuous of even basic monkey intellect).
(c) Corrupt individuals trying to give control of DNS to corporations.
Perhaps you have your own explanation - but all the evidence provides conclusive proof of the answer being (c) - corrupt individuals trying to give control of DNS to corporations.
|
|
|
|
[ Reply to This | Parent
]
|
|
|
|
Not logic - but intellectual vacuity
by WIPOorgUK
|
|
|
|
|
As you know - most companies share the same words with others.
The solution is “branding”
If everybody was called smith then smith.com would be very valuable, but it does not naturally follow that .smith would be a solution, as all this would do is shift the problem to the right a little.
The only other way your proposal can work would be to flip the item or object classification to the right. As in smith.paul, smith.dan, smith.gary
Surely a simpler, cheaper, more manageable and more memorable solution is paulsmith.com dansmith.com and garysmith.com?
With regards trademarks and preventing overreaching how does the creation of new gTLDs solve anything to do with trademarks? Surely this is a matter for politicians and the courts not for DNS design?
Your proposal for .reg a trademark specific gTLD is perhaps the exception. Has anybody ever offered funding for such a proposal to ICANN?
|
|
|
|
[ 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
|
