ICANN Responds to GAC

[Nicolas Adam]

Isn't gTLD enlargement at least in part proposed to, in time, kill the
many contestations over who owns a given alphanumeric string? I mean,
with a limitless gTLD space, isn't the message: "market, disseminate,
develop [your brand and its chosen gTLD] rather than protect [it]?" I
don't think it's too much to ask for gvnmt to pay for whatever
contestations they have. In turn, ICANN should ban domain tasting. Is
this already being done?

Nicolas

On 3/7/2011 2:47 AM, Adam Peake wrote:
> Just passing on what I hear, not presenting opinions.
>
>
>> > -----Original Message-----
>>>  Quite a few governments, usually developing country, don't entirely
>>>  trust the processes involved: they've seen names of products and
>>> culture
>>>  trademarked by people in the North, used in dot com (for
>>>  example) second level names, and there's a concern the same will
>>> happen
>>>  with new gTLDs.
>>
>> Ah, so we should establish intergovernmental committee to decide who
>> has the proper right to use words.
>> It's obvious, e.g., that that motorcycle company never should have
>> been able to name their product the "Indian," we should instead have
>> spent 5-10 years debating at the GAC who is divinely ordained to use
>> that term - would it be the South Asian country (and which part,
>> which agency) or the native Americans (and which tribe? Gosh!)?
>>
>> Call me crazy, but I think language and other forms of symbolic
>> expression are pretty much in the public domain except for that
>> narrow class of identifiers that are protected for consumer
>> protection/fraud purposes. And yes, many times that means people get
>> to call themselves, or their websites by names they may not be the
>> world's most deserving of, simply because they got there first.
>
>
>
> An example I've heard is Kikoi/Kikoy, a type of traditional Kenyan
> cloth.  UK company tried to trademark the name.  Happens all the
> time.  Very expensive, annoying, etc to challenge. It's not particular
> to ICANN and the DNS, everything from culture to traditional
> medicines.  And "sorry you didn't get there first" doesn't seem to
> make people happy. I wonder why...
>
>
>
>> > Why should they pay to protect something connected with national
>>>  sovereignty? They won't be making challenges for personal
>>> (individual or
>>>  corporate) gain, but for citizens.
>>
>> Can you tell me more about how names are connected with national
>> sovereignty?
>> Do I need permission from the US to label my business United States
>> Widgets? Do I need permission from France to sell French Fries? Can
>> you point me to the international law that says only the Peruvian
>> government has a legal right to register the name "Peru" in the
>> domain name space?
>>
>>>  Most govt do not have a budget line for making a payment of this
>>> kind to
>>>  a private sector organization.
>>
>> Really now? I wonder how they fly to meetings. Do they claim a
>> sovereign right to seat 23 A?
>
>
> Not sure your example's relevant.  I don't understand govt budgets so
> won't try to make up an answer. But if a room full of government reps,
> developed and developing country, say we do not have a budget line for
> this kind of payment, I think a good idea to take what they say at
> face value.
>
>
>> > And many really don't want to pay a private US corporation,
>> particularly
>>>  given ICANN's odd international status.  Matter of principle.
>>
>> What principle would that be?
>
>
>  ? ? ?
>
> Adam