To a great extent this is the result of years of, I'm trying to think of a softer word, corruption (in a generic sense), within the DNS policy process. Why have TLDs at all? To present some sort of taxonomy to the user. By user I mean both the purchasers of a domain and the general public. For example one tends to believe that a domain ending in .GOV is a US Govt agency (and even that usage raise objections.) But at some early point for example .ORG, which was supposed to be for non-profits or non-commercial entities, and .NET which was again supposed to be for network operations entities or similar, were just opened up to anyone and anything. With a very few exceptions or minor counter-examples this became the standard operating model. You get approved as a registry and spin up registrars for .HOTEL or whatever and you go to town selling them. Could be porn sites with catchy names, I'll spare you any speculations, or personal blogs about insecticides (ROACH.HOTEL!), whatever. Because to suggest anything else was, and I've sat in those meetings and hallway discussions, to say "we are taking away your revenue sources" and that was just a horrible injustice. So why have new TLDs at all? Other than to create products to sell. One reasoning pushed was because with so few TLDs the name space was crowded and not accommodating the fast-growing population of legitimate businesses who wanted a domain which reflected their brand. And of course the appearance of a taxonomy, a user could know that RACING.BICYCLES might actually lead to some site interested in racing bicycles. Sounds very reasonable. So for example if you were "Independent Bicycle Manufacturers" you knew you would never have IBM.COM or even IBM.{ORG,NET,INFO,BIZ}, they'd all been bought many years ago. But perhaps you could have IBM.BICYCLES? And why not? That's how international trademark law works. A mark is generally only defensible within a product or service area (I know, more complicated, but in a phrase) and assuming that big computer company doesn't sell bicycles the problem is, if not 100% solved (legitimate conflicts are still possible), mitigated. But at some point the Trademark Clearinghouse (TMCH) was invented so anyone with a properly registered trademark in any product or service area would get certain powerful rights in any new gTLD which could be summed up as an exclusive right of first refusal. So the computer company gets first shot at IBM.BICYCLES particularly if the bicycle manufacturing group never registered "IBM", perhaps can't meet the TMCH registration requirements even though they may have legitimate rights in the mark as pertains to bicycles. Further, if this bicycle group does manage to get IBM.BICYCLES they would have to acknowledge at registration that they are aware that this string ("IBM") is registered in the TMCH to the computer company and the computer company gets an immediate warning from TMCH that someone just registered a domain with their string. They may feel this is not a propitious start and understandably so. Which raises one question as to why these IGOs didn't just go the TMCH route and snatch up WHO.BICYCLES etc as each went into what's called their "sunrise" period when only those with proper TMCH registration can purchase a domain in that TLD? Too expensive for them perhaps? Ok, then we're just arguing about the price not the principle. The yearly TMCH registration fee is US$150 and sunrise registrations with a few notable exceptions are around US$100-US$200 each. I suppose they would argue that 1,000+ such registrations does get expensive but this is circular: Only if one accepts they must have rights in WHO.BICYCLE or WHO.HOTEL. Or maybe there is a principle involved? Why, for example, should a valid IGO be bothered with all that minutiae when their "rights" in the string should be self-evident. Clearly they are more important than multi-national corporations or tens of thousands of other civil society organizations worldwide. I don't mean to pick on IGOs. They may well have legitimate grievances and needs in regards to this issue. But what is the overarching rule in question here? Merely that squeaky wheels get all the grease? The point of this whole exercise has been to show where this abandoment of any claim of taxonomy, or any cogent principles at all really, have led. New gTLDs were opened soas to provide an opportunity for legitimate brand holders and others who wouldn't normally conflict under int'l trademark law to obtain a meaningful domain. And then slammed back shut in cases they would likely apply via TMCH and in particular threats of URS -- an ICANN process for a brand holder to shut down and usually obtain a domain (if successful) which they believe infringes on their mark. Whether or not that claim has ever been examined through the eyes of actual trademark law other than in passing, generally not. Don't get me wrong. I am not criticizing TMCH per se. They serve a useful function and in my experience do it well. My criticism is that it's a result of trying to patch up some rather broken, or perhaps put better non-existent, policies. Since almost all TLDs are meaningless anyhow except in the eye of the beholder and don't claim to, for example, reflect WIPO or USPTO trademark categories even in principle, not in the slightest, then where else could this all go? As I said there are a handful of exceptions. For example .MUSEUM was introduced in 2001, long before this current new TLD program, and seems to successfully limit registrations to actual museums by some reasonable-looking criteria. And .COOP released in the same year (2001) exclusively for cooperatives. There are also several in the new GTLD round though only time will tell if these promises will be adhered to. Ok, so almost no one has ever heard of .MUSEUM or .COOP. even as they enter their 17th year of service. They are nonetheless valid counter-examples! What does all this say about these current fulminations? That given a poorly designed system based on almost no principles it's not surprising that simple questions such as what rights do IGOs have in their marks (e.g., in .BICYCLES) become gut-wrenching exercises yielding existential threats of mutiny to even be heard. This is how chaos looks in its full realization. P.S. Any marks or TLDs mentioned above are purely illustrative. -- -Barry Shein Software Tool & Die | bzs@TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: +1 617-STD-WRLD | 800-THE-WRLD The World: Since 1989 | A Public Information Utility | *oo*