Some thoughts on the new gtld next round of application/Our public comment/email 1

[Raphaël Beauregard-Lacroix]

Dear Farzaneh, dear all

I do agree with you on principle regarding closed generics, but I don't
have much in a way of a cogent argumentation beyond what you state already;
it is more of a gut feeling than anything.

Same for the brand/generic overlap. I feel that caution is a better
attitude in this case, and generally speaking with these kind of things,
than "go fast and break things"

Best,

On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 7:07 PM farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii at gmail.com>
wrote:

> We are working on the public comment for the recommendations for next
> round of new gtld applications. I thought I highlight some of the issues to
> stir a conversation here, to help the policy committee and the pen-holders
> with finalizing our comments. The report is 300 pages and my knowledge is
> truly limited so I am gonna send these emails in bite size (more or less)
> perhaps they can help with shaping our comment and being able to submit it:
>
> I am going to discuss some of our high level principles that can be
> violated if these recommendations are adopted. Please chime in.
>
> Here is our public comment:
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1SxCa4cn-NEiS_tea-jUP02DSG6IEzf_O4_MBPLUtxZs/edit
>
>
> *Trademark overreach: *
> *Brand Registries (.Man) (or trademarking the generics as Konstantinos
> Komaitas coined the term)*
>
>  At the moment our public comment draft says that Brand registries should
> not be automatically allocated to brand owners.  brand registry is somehow
> vague and I think could lead to trademark overreach. What if a brand
> corresponds to a generic name? .SHARP? .MAN? I think we should emphasize
> upon two things when opposing brands be given automatic allocation: 1. the
> inappropriate process of 2012 2. limit our claim to brands that are generic
> names.  Look at this report on .Brand:
> https://dotbrandobservatory.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/Feb-2017-websites-profiles.pdf
>
> how many generic names do you see?
>
> I think instead of asking that corporations applications for .example be
> limited, we should ask that generic names that happen to be brands should
> be open registries. so that someone can register: bat.man. Spec 13, clause
> 9.13 has a definition of .Brand which has to be revised.
>
>
> The problem of trademarking generic terms  was clearly set out by one of
> our then very active members in 2013 in this blog:
> http://www.circleid.com/posts/trademarking_generics_the_bank_fiasco/-ar
>
>
> Also maybe we should think about other words. for example, international
> cartoon characters. I don't have a problem with a corporation wanting to
> register the name and have a registry operator but having it limited for
> its own purposes sounds like trademark overreach to me.   I am in tears
> that I cannot register  baqdadof.alibaba . But we can just compromise and
> just say generic names should not be trademarked in domain name space.
>
> I was not a part of NCSG even when these discussions were happening. So
> enlighten me.
>
> *Closed Generics*
>
> closed generics are very bad ideas. They mean that registries can decide
> to close down the registry to anyone but their corporation and brands.
> Google abandoned the idea and then there was a ban imposed on closed
> generics. It can lead to trade mark overreach. Are there any opinions on
> that?
>
>
> *Community TLDs*
>
> I don't know if we need to discuss this in the comment but Community TLDs
> in my opinion especially when it comes to three letter words are bad ideas.
> Their criteria of registration qualification are also not very global. But
> this doesn't seem to be an issue at NCSG so I am just going to opress my
> desire to ever register: ta.ngo
>
>
>
>
>
> Farzaneh
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20180920/0be7cd93/attachment.htm>