Hello Rick,
In all due respect your third reason absolutely floored me. The virtual world will be built by those that take the time, effort and sacrifice to do so. Dot com (commercial) was the only available gTLD to me and many others like me in 1994. It was what we had to build upon. ICANN does not determine what the public chooses or uses. The 1994 Internet, in my circles, was considered a fad. We could have simply used IPs to navigate and allowed search to do the workload. What had happened was actually quite beautiful. Average citizens could find a global distributional channel for ideas and products that used words to navigate. There was clarity in that a "word" with a dot com. It was understood as "the Internet". Dot com in itself became a brand. That was something the general public decided not the DNSO or ICANN. To purposely try to undo something that was natural will be futile in my opinion. There is a lot of growth in the name space for the global future. The new gTLDs will offer great wealth to those that sell, purchase and resell but it remains unseen if the global community chooses to "build upon" it. I personally think your intentions would have better served you unsaid.
Michael Castello
CEO/President
Castello Cities Internet Network, Inc.
--
Sunday, July 18, 2010, 11:55:07 AM, you wrote:
|
Sarah does a good job of identifying two of the three key drivers in the gTLD discussion, namely 1. The commercial interest of service providers and domain name investors in having access to a new universe of products to provide and-or invest in 2. The interest of trademark owners in not being subject to fresh new rounds of defensive registrations and trademark protection There is a third driver though, and it is the one which prompts BC members who are not in the domain business to support new gTLDs: 3. The need for the ICANN community to dissolve the perceptual and economic domination of .com in the domain space. To some of us, eliminating the .com dominance/monopoly is the single most important policy challenge facing ICANN. ICANN's practices and polices have had the (unintended) consequence of creating a near-monopoly, and an artificial scarcity of supply where none in fact exists, a near-monopoly and scarcity which distort prices and limit access. We need to fix that, and I at least have not yet heard a better way to do so than through multiplying TLDs. This is more than a debate between those with a commercial interest in the domain business vs those with a defensive interest in trademark protectionism cheers/Rick Rick Anderson EVP, Walton Global Investments Ltd randerson@WaltonGlobal.com cell (403) 830-1798 PS: Please note our updated corporate name and email address From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org To: Phil Corwin ; michaelc@traveler.com ; mike@haven2.com Cc: jb7454@att.com ; randruff@rnapartners.com ; ffelman@markmonitor.com ; bc-GNSO@icann.org Sent: Sun Jul 18 11:41:13 2010 Subject: RE: Re[2]: [bc-gnso] DRAFT BC Public Comments on DAGv4 I'm not opposed to polling members on this issue. I can understand that many of Phil's members who are in the domain name business may see business opportunities from the introduction of new gTLDs. They and others who expressed concern do not own a well known brand or have widespread trademark infringement problems. Those who object have different business interests and protecting corporate brands and consumers in the new gTLD spaces is not on their list of priorities. I respect that.
However, ICANN designated trademark protection as one of the overarching issues surrounding the rollout and pledged that these issues would be adequately addressed in the DAG. I'm not aware of any major brand owners, including the IPC members participating on the IRT, who are happy with the diluted trademark protections currently contained in DAG 4. I would hope even members without trademark concerns, should respect the interests of BC members who have such concerns and allow them to express those. Our BC GNSO councilors have consistently advocated for these protections on our behalf. The BC already submitted consistent comments in the past, including on DAG 3. Ron tried to keep much of the DAG 4 comments identical to the language to the DAG 3 draft. I'm sure Ron is open to receiving additional constructive edits on tone and substance (e.g., Mike R's helpful suggestion to delete reference to the GPML since that appears to be dead in the water).
I'm hopeful that we can find a consructive way to move forward given the importance of this issue to so many BC members. We've heard from those raising concerns, but we've also heard from AT&T, News Corp, Mike Rodenbaugh, NetChoice, Verizon and RNA Partners weighing in supporting the comments. I would urge others to weigh in on this as well.
Sarah
Sarah B. Deutsch Vice President & Associate General Counsel Verizon Communications Phone: 703-351-3044 Fax: 703-351-3670
From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Phil Corwin Sent: Saturday, July 17, 2010 9:48 PM To: 'michaelc@traveler.com'; 'mike@haven2.com' Cc: 'jb7454@att.com'; 'randruff@rnapartners.com'; 'ffelman@markmonitor.com'; 'bc-GNSO@icann.org' Subject: Re: Re[2]: [bc-gnso] DRAFT BC Public Comments on DAGv4 Given the diversity of opinion within the BC, as well as the fact that other members appear to have broader concerns than those I raised, I would again suggest that a poll should be taken of BC members to take the Constituency's temperature and determine if there is any consensus for the proposed position statement. Philip S. Corwin Partner, Butera & Andrews 1301 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Suite 500 Washington, DC 20004 2026635347/Office 2022556172/Cell "Luck is the residue of design." -- Branch Rickey
From: Michael Castello [mailto:michaelc@traveler.com] Sent: Saturday, July 17, 2010 07:04 PM To: Mike O'Connor <mike@haven2.com> Cc: Phil Corwin; BRUEGGEMAN, JEFF (ATTSI) <jb7454@att.com>; Ron Andruff <randruff@rnapartners.com>; frederick felman <ffelman@markmonitor.com>; bc-GNSO@icann.org <bc-GNSO@icann.org> Subject: Re[2]: [bc-gnso] DRAFT BC Public Comments on DAGv4
I agree with both Phil and Mikey. There was certainly a lot of freedom early on with the internet and closing ranks on the concerns of trademark holders and new entities were, over time, clearly needed. The name space was allowed to flourish because it was so available to everyone. We need to make sure that these regulations, while needed, do not become too cumbersome to new participants. Everyone needs to be invited to the party. Michael Castello CEO/President Castello Cities Internet Network, Inc. -- Saturday, July 17, 2010, 5:39:34 AM, you wrote:
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. |