[bc-gnso] Finding Common Ground Between Markholders and Legitimate Domain Registrants

[Rick Anderson]

Hmm.

This is not my favourite GK idea of all time.  

However, I do think the motivation is well-placed: how do we nurture the innovation, creativity, entrepreneurship and competition inherent in new TLDs and new registries and new models, while not saddling TMholders with the infinite costs of protecting their trademarks in an endless parade of TLDs.  Figure that out, George, and we shall be away to the races.

What I see wrong in this notion - at least as described here - is that it probably encourages tasting, squatting, speculation as much as it assists TMholders.  The unintended effect of subsidizing these activities is not a great plan.

As well, what actually makes sense with these secondary TM registrations is to point them at the primary site (rather than to leave them to non-resolve).  That's a better user experience, and if the holder has to go to the effort of registering them (a bigger cost really than the reg cost), whatever traffic they may generate may as well find its destination.

But I do agree with your premises, just not this particular tactic....

cheers/Rick

Rick Anderson
EVP, InterBorder Holdings Ltd
email: randerson at interborder.ca
cell: (403) 830-1798
office: (403) 750-5535


----- Original Message -----
From: owner-bc-gnso at icann.org <owner-bc-gnso at icann.org>
To: BC gnso <bc-gnso at icann.org>
Sent: Mon Jul 06 20:21:02 2009
Subject: [bc-gnso] Finding Common Ground Between Markholders and Legitimate Domain Registrants


Hi folks,

Any rational reading of the IRT comments archive demonstrates deep
divisions between TM holders and the broader public, in particular
domain name registrants:

http://forum.icann.org/lists/irt-final-report/

So, I thought it might be a good idea to try to find common ground
between the two sides. Since we continue to lack a true
cross-constituency GNSO mailing list, we'll have to do the best we can
with those on both sides represented in our own constituency.

Here's the first of several ideas that I'd like to "test", to see
whether they have the support of folks here:

1) Registry fees should be lower for domains that do no resolve (i.e.
have no nameservers). Since TM holders register a large number of
domains only for defensive purposes, they waste considerable sums on
domain names they simply do not really want to own or use. Conceivably
abusive registrants would benefit by being able to register larger
numbers of domains too at lower cost --- however, they'd be unable to
actually USE these domains, since the names do not resolve.

Please respond with "yes", "no", "maybe" and perhaps an explanation of
why you feel the way you do about the idea.

Perhaps we can queue up other ideas from both sides, and after
devoting a day or two or three to each idea (in separate threads), be
able to come up with a package of solutions that has strong consensus
support (even unanimous support) that we can bring to other
constituencies.

Sincerely,

George Kirikos
416-588-0269
http://www.leap.com/

 
 
This e-mail message and any attachments may contain confidential and/or privileged information intended only for the addressee. In the event this e-mail is sent to you in error, sender and sender’s company do not waive confidentiality or privilege, and waiver may not be assumed. Any dissemination, distribution or copying of, or action taken in reliance on, the contents of this e-mail by anyone other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you have been sent this e-mail in error, please destroy all copies and notify sender at the above e-mail address.
 
Computer viruses can be transmitted by e-mail. You should check this e-mail message and any attachments for viruses. Sender and sender’s company accept no liability for any damage caused by any virus transmitted by this e-mail. Like other forms of communication, e-mail communications may be vulnerable to interception by unauthorized parties. If you do not wish to communicate by e-mail, please notify sender. In the absence of such notification, your consent is assumed. Sender will not take any additional security measures (such as encryption) unless specifically requested.