Closed New gTLDs - "Closed Gardens"

[Nicolas Adam]

Yeah, that too (and Amen!).

Nicolas

On 05/09/2012 4:19 PM, Edward Morris wrote:
> I would take exception to the claim that allowing so called "closed 
> garden" gTLD's at all infringes upon nation states "entrenched legal 
> processes" for obtaining trademark protection.
>
> It's usually brand owners I need to remind of what appears to be a 
> little recognized fact: domain names are not trademarks. 
> Notwithstanding the fact that brand owners want us to treat domain 
> names as trademarks +, that some UDRP mediators seem to buy this 
> argument, that we're left fighting attempts to establish extraordinary 
> protection for famous marks...
>
> Domain names are not trademarks. Nor are they sui generis i.p. marks. 
> To sign this letter indicates a belief that in some form they are and 
> will make it a be a bit more difficult in the futre to coherently 
> fight efforts by brand owners to further expand their monopoly rights 
> in the domain ecosphere.
>
> The concept of a commons in generic terms may be admirable. The 
> concept stands alone and needs not and should not be linked to 
> trademark rights. Regrettably the time to make such an argument with 
> regards to this round of gTlds is in the past.
>
>
> On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 8:17 PM, Kathy Kleiman <kathy at kathykleiman.com 
> <mailto:kathy at kathykleiman.com>> wrote:
>
>     Hi All,
>     I would like to share with you a letter being circulated by
>     Michele Neylon, the wonderful Blacknight registrar (and the only
>     registrar in Ireland).  It deals with new gTLDs that are "closed
>     gardens" -- generic words that some companies have applied for as
>     new gTLDs and will keep "closed" -- not open for general
>     second-level domain name registration. These include some
>     applicants for .BLOG and .CLOUD, among many others.
>
>     It's a powerful letter with strong free speech/freedom of
>     expression arguments. Concerns are shared by registries,
>     registrars and registrants -- and Michele is looking for Signatories.
>
>     Please take a moment to look at the letter, and let Michele know
>     if you can sign on (name, organization).  Michele is cc'ed on this
>     email, and can be reached at michele at blacknight.ie
>     <mailto:michele at blacknight.ie>
>
>     -----
>     Here's the full version with current signatories :
>     https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZUNlookOWyaSW8lXfi_37zVFsVk9xcxncvmE0uwPEFY/editHere
>     are two quotes from the
>
>
>     Here are two quotes from the letter:
>     "Based on our collective industry experience, we are of the
>     opinion that the underlying intention of Section 6 was to allow
>     for the operation of closed gTLDs only under very defined
>     circumstances.
>     Specifically, that closed gTLDs should be reserved for only those
>     strings in which the applicant possesses established (i.e.,
>     legally recognized) intellectual property rights, basically brand
>     names.  We believe that this interpretation of Section 6 is
>     inherently logical especially in view of the discussions that
>     preceded the opening of gTLDs -- which focused, in very large
>     part, on expanding choices and opportunities as well as promoting
>     innovation, for Internet consumers worldwide."
>
>     "Further,  generic words used in a generic way belong to all
>     people. It is inherently in the public interest to allow access to
>     generic new gTLDs to the whole of the Internet Community, e.g.,
>     .BLOG, .MUSIC, .CLOUD. Allowing everyone to register and use
>     second level domain names of these powerful, generic TLDs is
>     exactly what we envisioned the New gTLD Program would do. In
>     contrast, to allow individual Registry Operators to segregate and
>     close-off common words for which they do not possess intellectual
>     property rights in effect allows them to circumvent nation-states’
>     entrenched legal processes for obtaining legitimate and recognized
>     trademark protections."
>     ----
>     Best,
>     Kathy
>
>     Kathy Kleiman
>     Internet Counsel, Fletcher, Heald & Hildreth
>     Co-Founder, NCUC
>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20120905/e71c4e48/attachment-0001.html>