Closed New gTLDs - "Closed Gardens"

[Carl Smith]

In rebuttal,

When Corporations own the very words we speak, what will that do to our 
daily communication?

Lou

On 9/5/2012 5:03 PM, Andrei Barburas wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> Edward, allow me to contradict you regarding this statement:
>
> "/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 best example I can give, is Amazon.com which is an actual 
> trademark (Amazon with and without the dotcom; a list of their 
> trademarks can be found here: 
> http://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html/?nodeId=200738910)
>
> This issue was discussed in one of our previous mailings regarding 
> "generic" words, like fruits and everyday items.
>
>
>
> *Andrei Barburas*
>
> Community Relations Services Officer
>
> International Institute for Communication and Development (IICD)
>
> P.O. Box 11586, 2502 AN The Hague, The Netherlands
>
>
> Mobile: +31 62 928 2879
>
> Phone: +31 70 311 7311
> Fax: +31 70 311 7322
> Website: www.iicd.org <http://www.iicd.org/>
>
> **People ********ICT  Development**
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 10:19 PM, Edward Morris 
> <edward.morris at alumni.usc.edu <mailto:edward.morris at alumni.usc.edu>> 
> 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/20120906/3f037732/attachment-0001.html>