On 28 January 2013 15:15, Eric Brunner-Williams <ebw@abenaki.wabanaki.net>wrote:
While looking for a means to add comments to those already present I came across one I thought worthy of note, I reproduce it in its entirety, without reference to its author, here:
Thank you for mentioning my comments.
I understand and acknowledge the claims of the communities to the term, what is at issue is whether they have exclusive claim, I note that the proponents did not see fit to attempt their own geoTLD applications, and there has been no attempt to challenge the current registration of patagonia.com. Had there been a conflict between a geoTLD application and commercial application for the same string, I would actively support the geographic one. But in the absense of a desire by the residents of the patagonia region to request their own TLD I am dis-inclined to impede the application.
The response to my comments were interesting, if totally off the mark. First, I suspect the author of this comment may err as to the
actual issue. I doubt that the standing of At Large requires [...]
Second, I suspect the author of this comment may err as to the necessity
[...]
Third, I suspect the author of this comment may err as to the necessity
[...]
Fourth, I suspect the author of this comment may err as to the necessity
[...]
My evaluation was not at all based on what is *necessary* according to ICANN regulations. I was, subjectively, commenting on what was the Right Approach To Take according to my own personal evaluation of the objections. In advice to the At-Large gTLD Review Group (and my ALAC colleagues should these matters ever come to vote), I was simply offering what I thought was a reasoned personal analysis of how the objection request ought to be treated. In other words, while the response is appreciated its suspicions are unfounded. I did not err on issue(s) of necessity because I never invoked them necessity as a rationale. Also independent of the above, the purpose of trademark protection is the
prevention of confusion in the market. The claim that absent the contract to operate a regional identifier as a private commercial mark confusion exists in the market would be difficult to substantiate. However, the confusion in the market resulting in the grant to a private commercial use of a regional identifier is not difficult to anticipate.
This is another interesting point. However, we do have some prior activity through which we can measure whether or not confusion is indeed "difficult to anticipate". That is, "patagonia" and "amazon" have existed as second-level domains for quite some time, within existing TLDs (including the most commonly-used .com), by the commercial entities applying for the respective new gTLDs. We should indeed be able to measure -- let alone anticipate -- levels of confusion based on this *existing* alleged name appropriation. If reduction in confusion is to be offered as a rationale, the onus is on objectors to demonstrate anticipated confusion for amazon and patagonia as TLDs. If no confusion has been experienced by these strings' use at the second level, it is unreasonable to simply assert that confusion will immediately appear should these same strings be used at the top level. Cheers, - Evan