Re: ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs
----- Original Message -----
From: "Joel Jaeggli" <joelja@bogus.com>
http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/consultation-outreach-en.htm
That page doesn't appear to discuss the specific topic I'm talking about, and for the 9th or 10th time, I *know* they've been talking about expanding the root; I approved that message back in 1997, as posted earlier.
It does.
The process as described in 2009 places no lower bound on the narrowness of the community which a gtld proposes to serve.
1.2.2 Community-Based Designation All applicants are required to designate whether their application is community-based.
1.2.2.1 Definitions2
For purposes of this Applicant Guidebook, a communitybased gTLD is a gTLD that is operated for the benefit of a defined community consisting of a restricted population.
An applicant designating its application as communitybased will be asked to substantiate its status as representative of the community it names in the application, and additional information may be requested in the event of a comparative evaluation (refer to Section 4.2 of Module 4). An applicant for a community-based gTLD is expected to:
1. Demonstrate an ongoing relationship with a defined community that consists of a restricted population. 2. Have applied for a gTLD string strongly and specifically related to the community named in the application. 3. Have proposed dedicated registration and use policies for registrants in its proposed gTLD. 4. Have its application endorsed in writing by an established institution representing the community it has named.
For purposes of differentiation, an application that has not been designated as community-based will be referred to hereinafter in this document as an open gTLD. An open gTLD can be used for any purpose consistent with the requirements of the application and evaluation criteria, and with the registry agreement. An open gTLD may or may not have a formal relationship with an exclusive registrant or user population. It may or may not employ eligibility or use restrictions
I will concur with your assertion that it is *possible to infer* that Apple running a .apple registry for its own internal commercial purposes would fit their definition of "community"... but the phrasing of the restrictions they place on it makes it pretty clear, at least to me, that the people who wrote it weren't thinking about that possible use case. All of their restrictions/instructions become tautologies in that limiting case, do they not? And indeed: who arbitrates trademark conflicts, in what is now *necessarily* a global collision space? Forbidding the registration of gTLDs which conflict with trademarks registered with any national authority would seem to be only minimally sane, to me... but that's orthogonal to whether the issue's come up in specific detail, of course. My apologies for not reading deeper into your citation, though I'm not sure I would have caught that section as a response to me anyway. Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink jra@baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth & Associates http://baylink.pitas.com 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA http://photo.imageinc.us +1 727 647 1274
On Jun 17, 2011, at 6:07 PM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
----- Original Message -----
From: "Joel Jaeggli" <joelja@bogus.com>
http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/consultation-outreach-en.htm
That page doesn't appear to discuss the specific topic I'm talking about, and for the 9th or 10th time, I *know* they've been talking about expanding the root; I approved that message back in 1997, as posted earlier.
It does.
The process as described in 2009 places no lower bound on the narrowness of the community which a gtld proposes to serve.
1.2.2 Community-Based Designation All applicants are required to designate whether their application is community-based.
1.2.2.1 Definitions2
For purposes of this Applicant Guidebook, a communitybased gTLD is a gTLD that is operated for the benefit of a defined community consisting of a restricted population.
An applicant designating its application as communitybased will be asked to substantiate its status as representative of the community it names in the application, and additional information may be requested in the event of a comparative evaluation (refer to Section 4.2 of Module 4). An applicant for a community-based gTLD is expected to:
1. Demonstrate an ongoing relationship with a defined community that consists of a restricted population. 2. Have applied for a gTLD string strongly and specifically related to the community named in the application. 3. Have proposed dedicated registration and use policies for registrants in its proposed gTLD. 4. Have its application endorsed in writing by an established institution representing the community it has named.
For purposes of differentiation, an application that has not been designated as community-based will be referred to hereinafter in this document as an open gTLD. An open gTLD can be used for any purpose consistent with the requirements of the application and evaluation criteria, and with the registry agreement. An open gTLD may or may not have a formal relationship with an exclusive registrant or user population. It may or may not employ eligibility or use restrictions
I will concur with your assertion that it is *possible to infer* that Apple running a .apple registry for its own internal commercial purposes would fit their definition of "community"... but the phrasing of the restrictions they place on it makes it pretty clear, at least to me, that the people who wrote it weren't thinking about that possible use case.
All of their restrictions/instructions become tautologies in that limiting case, do they not?
And indeed: who arbitrates trademark conflicts, in what is now *necessarily* a global collision space? Forbidding the registration of gTLDs which conflict with trademarks registered with any national authority would seem to be only minimally sane, to me... but that's orthogonal to whether the issue's come up in specific detail, of course.
Forgetting even the individual nation issues, within the US, there are so many different trademark namespaces that you can have multiple organizations with the same name. For example: MacDonald's would likely get title to .macdonalds under the new rules, right? Well... Which MacDonald's? 1. The fast food chain 2. O.C. MacDonald's Plumbing Supply 3. MacDonald and Sons Paving Systems 4. MacDonald and Madison Supply Company 5. etc. All of them have legitimate non-conflicting trademarks on the name MacDonald's (or at least could, I admit I made some of them up). I said when this mess first started that mapping trademarks to DNS would only lead to dysfunction. It did. Now the dysfunction is becoming all-encompassing. It will be interesting to watch the worlds IP lawyers (IP as in Intellectual Property, not Internet Protocol) eat their young over these issues for the next several decades. Owen
----- Original Message -----
From: "Owen DeLong" <owen@delong.com>
MacDonald's would likely get title to .macdonalds under the new rules, right?
Well... Which MacDonald's?
1. The fast food chain 2. O.C. MacDonald's Plumbing Supply 3. MacDonald and Sons Paving Systems 4. MacDonald and Madison Supply Company 5. etc.
All of them have legitimate non-conflicting trademarks on the name MacDonald's (or at least could, I admit I made some of them up). I said when this mess first started that mapping trademarks to DNS would only lead to dysfunction. It did. Now the dysfunction is becoming all-encompassing. It will be interesting to watch the worlds IP lawyers (IP as in Intellectual Property, not Internet Protocol) eat their young over these issues for the next several decades.
Indeed. It's actually "McDonalds", of course, and the US trademark law system has a provision for "famous" marks. I don't recall what the rules are, but once they've decide your mark is "famous", then it no longer competes only in its own line-of-business category; *no one* can register a new mark in any category using your word. Coca-Cola, Sony, and I think Kodak, are the canonical examples of a famous mark. http://www.quizlaw.com/trademarks/what_is_a_famous_trademark.php Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink jra@baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth & Associates http://baylink.pitas.com 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA http://photo.imageinc.us +1 727 647 1274
On Jun 17, 2011, at 8:39 PM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
----- Original Message -----
From: "Owen DeLong" <owen@delong.com>
MacDonald's would likely get title to .macdonalds under the new rules, right?
Well... Which MacDonald's?
1. The fast food chain 2. O.C. MacDonald's Plumbing Supply 3. MacDonald and Sons Paving Systems 4. MacDonald and Madison Supply Company 5. etc.
All of them have legitimate non-conflicting trademarks on the name MacDonald's (or at least could, I admit I made some of them up). I said when this mess first started that mapping trademarks to DNS would only lead to dysfunction. It did. Now the dysfunction is becoming all-encompassing. It will be interesting to watch the worlds IP lawyers (IP as in Intellectual Property, not Internet Protocol) eat their young over these issues for the next several decades.
Indeed.
It's actually "McDonalds", of course, and the US trademark law system has a provision for "famous" marks. I don't recall what the rules are, but once they've decide your mark is "famous", then it no longer competes only in its own line-of-business category; *no one* can register a new mark in any category using your word.
While that is true, there are several McDonalds registered in various spaces that actually predate even the existance of Mr. Crok's famous burger joints.
Coca-Cola, Sony, and I think Kodak, are the canonical examples of a famous mark.
Let us not also forget the over-extension of that situation, as applied to Jell-O where there are now very bizarre rules about who can and can't refer to just any gelatine dessert as Jell-O. Owen
Subject: Re: ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> Date: Sat, 18 Jun 2011 01:24:37 -0700
[[.. sneck ..]]
While that is true, there are several McDonalds registered in various spaces that actually predate even the existance of Mr. Crok's famous burger joints.
Just for the recorcd, that's a crock. The man who made the burger chain a household word is Mr Ray _Kroc_. "Spelling counts." <grin>
Well... Which MacDonald's?
ICANN has a 350 page draft applicant guidebook on their web site that explains the barococo application and evaluation process here: http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtld-program.htm Please do NOT download it or read it, since actual knowledge is so much less fun than uninformed wankage on nanog. R's, John
Subject: Re: ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
MacDonald's would likely get title to .macdonalds under the new rules, right?
Well... Which MacDonald's?
1. The fast food chain 2. O.C. MacDonald's Plumbing Supply 3. MacDonald and Sons Paving Systems 4. MacDonald and Madison Supply Company 5. etc.
Easy to resolve (excuse the pun) _that_ one. The _senior_ claimant to that domain would be Clan MacDonald, of Scotland. Who gets 'apple'? Apple (the computer company), Apple (the record company)? How about the 'fruit of the month' club? Now, if you want a _hard_ problem, who gets to register 'YellowPages' ? <*EVIL* grin>
On Jun 18, 2011, at 12:18 AM, Robert Bonomi wrote:
Subject: Re: ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
MacDonald's would likely get title to .macdonalds under the new rules, right?
Well... Which MacDonald's?
1. The fast food chain 2. O.C. MacDonald's Plumbing Supply 3. MacDonald and Sons Paving Systems 4. MacDonald and Madison Supply Company 5. etc.
Easy to resolve (excuse the pun) _that_ one.
The _senior_ claimant to that domain would be Clan MacDonald, of Scotland.
Who gets 'apple'? Apple (the computer company), Apple (the record company)? How about the 'fruit of the month' club?
Now, if you want a _hard_ problem, who gets to register 'YellowPages' ? <*EVIL* grin>
That's easy... Oracle as the successor to Sun Microsystems. :p Owen
In message <201106180718.p5I7IrBe020792@mail.r-bonomi.com>, Robert Bonomi write s:
Subject: Re: ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
MacDonald's would likely get title to .macdonalds under the new rules, right?
Well... Which MacDonald's?
1. The fast food chain 2. O.C. MacDonald's Plumbing Supply 3. MacDonald and Sons Paving Systems 4. MacDonald and Madison Supply Company 5. etc.
Easy to resolve (excuse the pun) _that_ one.
The _senior_ claimant to that domain would be Clan MacDonald, of Scotland.
Who gets 'apple'? Apple (the computer company), Apple (the record company)? How about the 'fruit of the month' club?
Now, if you want a _hard_ problem, who gets to register 'YellowPages' ? <*EVIL* grin>
YellowPages would work. It's used under licence. au.YellowPages uk.YellowPages As for single label hostnames, RFC 897 got rid of single label hostnames and they should not come back. They are a security issue, see RFC 1535. This has been pointed out in the past. Mark -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: marka@isc.org
On Jun 18, 2011, at 1:47 AM, Mark Andrews wrote:
In message <201106180718.p5I7IrBe020792@mail.r-bonomi.com>, Robert Bonomi write s:
Subject: Re: ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
MacDonald's would likely get title to .macdonalds under the new rules, right?
Well... Which MacDonald's?
1. The fast food chain 2. O.C. MacDonald's Plumbing Supply 3. MacDonald and Sons Paving Systems 4. MacDonald and Madison Supply Company 5. etc.
Easy to resolve (excuse the pun) _that_ one.
The _senior_ claimant to that domain would be Clan MacDonald, of Scotland.
Who gets 'apple'? Apple (the computer company), Apple (the record company)? How about the 'fruit of the month' club?
Now, if you want a _hard_ problem, who gets to register 'YellowPages' ? <*EVIL* grin>
YellowPages would work. It's used under licence.
au.YellowPages uk.YellowPages
As for single label hostnames, RFC 897 got rid of single label hostnames and they should not come back. They are a security issue, see RFC 1535.
This has been pointed out in the past.
Mark -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: marka@isc.org
All true. However, since TLDs will now be run by anyone with $185k/year to get what they want... Owen
participants (5)
-
Jay Ashworth -
John Levine -
Mark Andrews -
Owen DeLong -
Robert Bonomi