Opinions requested from the At-Large community on objection comments received on new gTLD applications.
As per the process by which the ALAC can object to a new gTLD application (see PDF at http://bit.ly/how-ALAC-files-objection-to-new-gTLD ), the New gTLD Review Group (gTLD RG) kindly requests the opinions from the At-Large community on the comments received on the following new gTLD applications: .amazon ( https://community.icann.org/display/newgtldrg/.amazon_OG ) .patagonia (https://community.icann.org/display/newgtldrg/.patagonia_OG ) .nyc ( https://community.icann.org/display/newgtldrg/.nyc_OG ) .health ( https://community.icann.org/display/newgtldrg/.health_OG ) To date, there are not enough comments by the At-Large community on these applications to determine whether there is substantial opposition as described in Section 3.5.4 of the Applicant Guidebook. This section describes 4 tests for the Dispute Resolution Service Provider hearing the objection to determine whether there is substantial opposition from a significant portion of the community to which the string may be targeted. For an objection to be successful, the objector must prove that: * The community invoked by the objector is a clearly delineated community; and * Community opposition to the application is substantial; and * There is a strong association between the community invoked and the applied-for gTLD string; and * The application creates a likelihood of material detriment to the rights or legitimate interests of a significant portion of the community to which the string may be explicitly or implicitly targeted. See https://community.icann.org/x/QgkQAg for more details about the criteria for objection grounds. You can post your opinions on the wiki pages linked to earlier or by visiting the new gTLD Dashboard at http://bit.ly/newgtld before the next gTLD RG conference call on February 1 2013 Kind Regards, Dev Anand Teelucksingh gTLD RG chair
-------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Opinions requested from the At-Large community on objection comments received on new gTLD applications. Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2013 11:40:24 -0800 From: Eric Brunner-Williams <ebw@abenaki.wabanaki.net> Reply-To: ebw@abenaki.wabanaki.net Organization: wampumpeag To: Dev Anand Teelucksingh <admin@ttcsweb.org> CC: ebw@abenaki.wabananki.net dev, it is my considered view that each of the four strings: {amazon, patagonia, nyc, and health} should be allocated only if applicants can be found which meet objective, and feasible criteria. both amazon and patagonia are identifiers which pre-existed the 19th century, and have been incorporated by national governments as regional identifiers, though at present no iso3166-1 allocated entity employs either as an iso3166-3 identifier. it was the plain sense of the gac members who spoke to the regional identifier issue at the cartagena meeting, the last meeting in which i personally participated as a member of "at large", that identifiers the gac members sought to extend the protection afforded "capitals" of iso3166-1 allocated entities to regional identifiers not restricted to iso3166-3 (political subdivisions). therefore, if applicant(s) for {amazon, patagonia} exist which have, as the de minimus, proof of non-opposition by the governments which share jurisdiction over the amazonian watershed, or the governments of Chile and Argentia, then a review of the qualifications of the applicant(s) is consistent with the corporation's policies for the allocation of geographic identifiers. the intent of an extension of protection afforded "capitals", metioned above, clearly encompassed non-capital urban aggregations, and thus the de minimus predicate condition mentioned above also applies. the ccnso has held for many years that the principle of subsidiarity applies to the iso3166-1 allocations. from my view, this is a cum hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy, which overlooks the chronological ordering of events, as capture of cctld delegations, e.g., those to some small pacific island states by commercial operators, preceded the formation of the corporation and the drafting of its bylaws. if not a fallacy, it posits a pre-existing, and enduring policy, necessarily inconsistent with the obvious meaning of the "public trust" provisions of rfc1591. a fundamental question arises in the gnso policied context if a applicant for an identifier to which gac-identified protection is associated, proposes, if awarded an identifier protected from any use which lacks the de minimus predicate condition, to operate arbitrarily. to put it simply, if a government proposes the exploitation of an identifier obtained through the exploitation of its right (as articulated in the several applicant guide drafts) to an otherwise unqualified party -- the capture by commercial operators problem, supra, does the "principal of subsidiarity" apply, allowing this arbitrary conduct by the delegee, or is it barred by gnso policy? having supervised the response of a vendor to the initial and subsequent requests for information and request for proposal (rfp) published by an agency of government of the city of new york, i'm cognizant of the specific issues. it was explicit in the rfp that the agency was evaluating both a "community type" and an unrestricted or "generic" type, and responding vendors were required to provide policy and business model data for both "community type" and "generic" types of applications. for reasons known only to the agency of government and possibly the selected vendor, the application submitted was not the "community based" type. here finally the issue lies: may an inferior political jurisdiciton, ineligible to join the ccnso, yet extended the protection afforded iso3166 political jurisdictions to a dispositive right to a string, determine the conditions of that string's delegation in the iana root zone? may it construct the meaning of the "public trust" provisions of rfc1591 arbitrarily? the language of the .nyc application references "community" and contains implicit, and explicit reference to an advisory body formed external to both the agency of government and the agency selected vendor. at some point the applicant must take reasonable steps to implement the promises made in its offer, and if that point is after the closure of the window for limited public interest objection, then the promise which touches on the public interest is necessarily false. as the applicant has not formed the community advisory board it promised, its application should be deferred until that promise has been substantially kept. if deferral, both of the application and the limited public interest objection capability, is not possible, then the application should be opposed. finally the applications submitted in the 2012 round for "health" (in latin and han script) are superceded by the application submitted by the world health organization in the 2000 round. i am unconvinced that the corporation may unilaterally alter the terms and conditions of its offer to the 2000 round applicants, and in the present, grant the 2000 round applicant a "credit" of some $45,000 to some future application, and grant the 2000 round applicant's string to a third party. if the corporation could unilaterally alter the terms and conditions of its offer to the 2000 round applicants, it could do so to its 2004 and 2012 round applicants, with adverse consequences in the courts and the market. an additional basis for the limited public interest objection is the fundamental public interest in timely and correct information relating to public health. this is the purpose of the w.h.o., and its record supports its representation that it carries out its purpose as intended by its founders, the public health agencies of governments, and subsequently, treaty organizations. the non-governmental applicants have no similar history of interest, or competency, in this fundamental public interest. -e
On 1/26/13 1:41 PM, Eric Brunner-Williams wrote:
it is my considered view that each of the four strings: {amazon, patagonia, nyc, and health} should be allocated only if applicants can be found which meet objective, and feasible criteria.
Dev, You've had an opportunity to add responses the to you email sent to the following: afri-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org, apac-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org, euro-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org, lac-discuss-en@atlarge-lists.icann.org, na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org, and at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org In particular, mine beginning as follows:
it is my considered view that each of the four strings: {amazon, patagonia, nyc, and health} should be allocated only if applicants can be found which meet objective, and feasible criteria.
To one or all of the staff managed sites: https://community.icann.org/display/newgtldrg/{.amazon_OG,.patagonia_OG,.nyc_OG, and .health_OG} Lacking write permissions to each of these URLs, I've not added my responses, but trust that you will do so before the response period expires. If you would like I can send you text with conventional capitalization. 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:
I am ambivalent about the objections to both .amazon and .patagonia.
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.
First, I suspect the author of this comment may err as to the actual issue. I doubt that the standing of At Large requires a determination of whether or not an applicant, which may be identified by string contention, not merely exact or partial string match, possibly in another script than the instant application, or an objector, has "exclusive claim" to the string. Second, I suspect the author of this comment may err as to the necessity of a party bringing an objection having, as a predicate condition, submitted any application, let alone an application for the string associated with the instant application. Third, I suspect the author of this comment may err as to the necessity of exhaustion of remedies for a legacy registration, under the independent rules for legacy namespaces, adopted when the Corporation was formed and subsequently modified, but never extended to new namespace applications through the numerous drafts of the Applicant's Guidebook, for a registration made a half decade before the Corporation was formed. Fourth, I suspect the author of this comment may err as to the necessity of any of predicate act by any third party as a precondition for At Large to exercise its standing to object to any application. With respect I suggest the better course of analysis is to review the record for the grounds for objections, and the standings required of the objectors, here the attempted appropriation of unmistakable regional identifiers by managers of brands intentionally exploited remotely to the identified region, to enhance trademarked merchandise profit margins, with no identifiable benefit to the name originating region, before waiving the standing of At Large based upon some other rational for non-objection. Independent of the above, I suspect that the Corporation's "outreach" expenditures relative to the 2012 gTLD application process in each region is substantially less than its expenditures in the North American region (domicile of record of the .patagonia applicant) or the European region (domicile of record of the .amazon applicant). 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. The first of these two independent observations speaks to the duty of an agency of government (United States), or its delegated agency actor, under tha Administrative Procedures Act of 1946, to make effective, not fictional, notice and comment, prior to rule making. The second of these two independent observations speaks to the duty of a market actor cognizant of trademarks to avoid acts likely to increase confusion in the market. Eric
On 28 January 2013 15:15, Eric Brunner-Williams <ebw@abenaki.wabanaki.net>wrote:
On 1/26/13 1:41 PM, Eric Brunner-Williams wrote:
it is my considered view that each of the four strings: {amazon, patagonia, nyc, and health} should be allocated only if applicants can be found which meet objective, and feasible criteria.
For better or worse that' s not how the process works. Applications don't have to prove legitimacy, by an objection process exists to address those considered illegitimate on specific grounds. All those not being found illegitimate are accepted. To act otherwise at this point, contrary to the existing procedures, is to invite lawsuits. There is no political entity called "Amazon", though there are many called "Amazonas". There is already a process in ICANN to deny names similar to political entities (countries, provinces, cities, states) without approval. If ".amazon" passes that then a community-based objection -- coming from people OF that area, not North American proxies, need to object. In the case of Patagonia, that is a region and not a political entity name. It, like Amazon, is also the name of a multinational commercial entity. It will be significant, at least to me, to see the history of objections launched against these domain names at the second level. In the case of .nyc we have a situation in which the city government has made a clear choice according to ICANN guidelines. While I am extreley symathetic to Tom' s original vision for .nyc and far prefer it to that in the existing application, it is hard to imagine an objection that could avoid forcing ICANN to get involved in New York's municipal politics. Objectively, a democratically-elected NY city council would be very difficult to second-guess as to determining relative community support of the two approaches. And as for .health, I personally see it as no different from any other non-brand dictionary word being applied for as a TLD. Whether this particular TLD survives or fails will depend on its ability to earn and maintain public trust, or if it is just seen as no better than dot-com as a source of health-related materials. I see no grounds for objection on that name. If it turns out to be useless it won' t be used. - Evan
it is my considered view that each of the four strings: {amazon, patagonia, nyc, and health} should be allocated only if applicants can be found which meet objective, and feasible criteria.
To one or all of the staff managed sites:
https://community.icann.org/display/newgtldrg/{.amazon_OG,.patagonia_OG,.nyc_OG , and .health_OG}
Lacking write permissions to each of these URLs, I've not added my responses, but trust that you will do so before the response period expires. If you would like I can send you text with conventional capitalization.
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:
I am ambivalent about the objections to both .amazon and .patagonia.
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.
First, I suspect the author of this comment may err as to the actual issue.
I doubt that the standing of At Large requires a determination of whether or not an applicant, which may be identified by string contention, not merely exact or partial string match, possibly in another script than the instant application, or an objector, has "exclusive claim" to the string.
Second, I suspect the author of this comment may err as to the necessity of a party bringing an objection having, as a predicate condition, submitted any application, let alone an application for the string associated with the instant application.
Third, I suspect the author of this comment may err as to the necessity of exhaustion of remedies for a legacy registration, under the independent rules for legacy namespaces, adopted when the Corporation was formed and subsequently modified, but never extended to new namespace applications through the numerous drafts of the Applicant's Guidebook, for a registration made a half decade before the Corporation was formed.
Fourth, I suspect the author of this comment may err as to the necessity of any of predicate act by any third party as a precondition for At Large to exercise its standing to object to any application.
With respect I suggest the better course of analysis is to review the record for the grounds for objections, and the standings required of the objectors, here the attempted appropriation of unmistakable regional identifiers by managers of brands intentionally exploited remotely to the identified region, to enhance trademarked merchandise profit margins, with no identifiable benefit to the name originating region, before waiving the standing of At Large based upon some other rational for non-objection.
Independent of the above, I suspect that the Corporation's "outreach" expenditures relative to the 2012 gTLD application process in each region is substantially less than its expenditures in the North American region (domicile of record of the .patagonia applicant) or the European region (domicile of record of the .amazon applicant).
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.
The first of these two independent observations speaks to the duty of an agency of government (United States), or its delegated agency actor, under tha Administrative Procedures Act of 1946, to make effective, not fictional, notice and comment, prior to rule making. The second of these two independent observations speaks to the duty of a market actor cognizant of trademarks to avoid acts likely to increase confusion in the market.
Eric ------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss
Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------
-- Evan Leibovitch Toronto Canada Em: evan at telly dot org Sk: evanleibovitch Tw: el56
In the case of Patagonia, that is a region and not a political entity name. It, like Amazon, is also the name of a multinational commercial entity. It will be significant, at least to me, to see the history of objections launched against these domain names at the second level.
In ICANN's comments system, there's a huge pile of comments on .PATAGONIA. Many are in Spanish, which suggests they are from people who live in the area. There are only two on .AMAZON. I agree that North Americans have no particular standing to complain about either.
In the case of .nyc we have a situation in which the city government has made a clear choice according to ICANN guidelines.
Agreed. Complaints go to the NY city council, not ICANN.
And as for .health, I personally see it as no different from any other non-brand dictionary word being applied for as a TLD. ...
There are four applications, all of which have a lot of comments. Is this about one in particular, or all four of them? Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. http://jl.ly
On 28 January 2013 17:07, John R. Levine <johnl@iecc.com> wrote:
In the case of Patagonia, that is a region and not a political entity name.
It, like Amazon, is also the name of a multinational commercial entity. It will be significant, at least to me, to see the history of objections launched against these domain names at the second level.
In ICANN's comments system, there's a huge pile of comments on .PATAGONIA. Many are in Spanish, which suggests they are from people who live in the area.
Agreed. One of the things that confounded me about the TLD process was that there seemed to be no concrete manner with which to handle the comments received. How are they to be evaluated and, if they constitute a legitimate community concern, how do they get escalated and collected? Certainly the ALAC and GAC objection processes have no link to the public comment area... is this the Independent Objector's responsibility? Or do the comments just sit there? And as for .health, I personally see it as no different from any other
non-brand dictionary word being applied for as a TLD. ...
There are four applications, all of which have a lot of comments. Is this about one in particular, or all four of them?
The comment received<http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/newgtldrg/attachments/20130125/469ed997/IMIArequesttoALAC-0001.pdf>objects to all of the current applications and asks for a moratorium on the delegation. It seems to suggest that only a suitably qualified NPO or the WHO should be entitled to run a TLD using this string. My take is that the public is sufficiently jaded by the existing naming structure that no simple name -- even a TLD -- will on its own engender any public trust. That needs to be earned. There is already such a broad history of drug companies using domain names connoting impartial health advice (ie whyinsulin.com), not to mention a whole industry of utter fakes. Only the most gullible are taken in anymore, and that can be solved through education. So I don' t really care who gets the prize. It is, after all, just a name. Given the nature of the industry-agreed TLD creation process, we need to operate under the reasonable premise than NO gTLD is being created in the public interest until proven otherwise -- either demonstrated over time, or by externally trusted certification / endorsement. I don' t care what happens to .bank, either. The URL of my current financial services provider serves me quite well under .com. - Evan
Evan, About your comment regarding our .nyc TLD objection: /In the case of .nyc we have a situation in which the city government has made a clear choice according to ICANN guidelines. While I am extreley sympathetic to Tom' s original vision for .nyc and far prefer it to that in the existing application, it is hard to imagine an objection that could avoid forcing ICANN to get involved in New York's municipal politics. Objectively, a democratically-elected NY city council would be very difficult to second-guess as to determining relative community support of the two approaches./ First: I am extremely happy to hear of your support of the vision of a community TLD that we've advanced. Second: When you say "/it is hard to imagine an objection that could avoid forcing ICANN to get involved in New York's municipal politics/" I share your concern. However, (see my third point...) Third: Your presumption that our /democratically-elected NY city council/ had a hand in developing or approving the city's .nyc application is inaccurate. The city council did not vote on the agreement. The city council did not hold a hearing on the agreement under discussion. The then Commissioner of the city's Department of Information and Technology and Telecommunications, Carole Post, signed the agreement with NeuStar, with delegated authority to sign on behalf of the city (I presume). A city grassroots governance body recently passed a resolution requesting closer engagement of the community in the development of the .nyc TLD. Speaking about the long promised but as of yet unseen Community Advisory Board (CAB), the Community Board recommended on : * that the .nyc TLD's Community Advisory Board take a careful view of this most important resource, and that it be provided with adequate resources to assure its effective operation. * that Community Boards, civic organizations, not-for-profit entities, and local small businesses be represented on the Community Advisory Board. * that domain names that support civic life should be thoughtfully reserved for use by the city's neighborhoods, community organizations, not-for-profit institutions, and local small businesses. * that civic not-for-profit organizations, and small businesses be provided with adequate notification of domain name selection periods, and the opportunity to select a good domain name. * that the city carefully coordinate the development of its Top Level Domain with the other cities that have applied for their TLDs, seeking opportunities for standardization and the sharing of good TLD governance practices. * that a plan be formulated to assure that the .nyc TLD is a sustainable resource: that domain names are recycled so they are available to New Yorkers today and tomorrow. The Community Board is appointed jointly by the elected city council members and the elected borough presidents. (Name Confusion Note: There's the promised Community Advisory Board (CAB) that's to engage specifically with the .nyc TLD. The Community Boards, one of which passed the above resolution, and the 2001 Internet Empowerment Resolution which first surfaced a civic TLD, were originally called Community Planning Boards, but the "Planning" Boards name was shortened to Community Board to differentiate them from the Community School Boards. Ouch!) But to the point at hand, I don't believe the possibly confounding politics of the matter are necessarily in question. Rather, its the merits of the four points in the guidelines that must be proved. And I think a review of our submission (https://community.icann.org/display/newgtldrg/.nyc_OG?focusedCommentId=40173...) shows that there is a community is offering a substantial objection. Finally, note that the application before ICANN is for .nyc (a regional airport code) and not .newyorkcity or .newyork. Sincerely, Tom Lowenhaupt P.S. Your email reminded me that the matter is well beyond the capacity of my mini brain and I've reached out to see if this is within the remit of our pro bono public interest attorneys. On 1/28/2013 4:03 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
On 28 January 2013 15:15, Eric Brunner-Williams <ebw@abenaki.wabanaki.net>wrote:
On 1/26/13 1:41 PM, Eric Brunner-Williams wrote:
it is my considered view that each of the four strings: {amazon, patagonia, nyc, and health} should be allocated only if applicants can be found which meet objective, and feasible criteria.
For better or worse that' s not how the process works. Applications don't have to prove legitimacy, by an objection process exists to address those considered illegitimate on specific grounds. All those not being found illegitimate are accepted. To act otherwise at this point, contrary to the existing procedures, is to invite lawsuits.
There is no political entity called "Amazon", though there are many called "Amazonas". There is already a process in ICANN to deny names similar to political entities (countries, provinces, cities, states) without approval. If ".amazon" passes that then a community-based objection -- coming from people OF that area, not North American proxies, need to object.
In the case of Patagonia, that is a region and not a political entity name. It, like Amazon, is also the name of a multinational commercial entity. It will be significant, at least to me, to see the history of objections launched against these domain names at the second level.
In the case of .nyc we have a situation in which the city government has made a clear choice according to ICANN guidelines. While I am extreley symathetic to Tom' s original vision for .nyc and far prefer it to that in the existing application, it is hard to imagine an objection that could avoid forcing ICANN to get involved in New York's municipal politics. Objectively, a democratically-elected NY city council would be very difficult to second-guess as to determining relative community support of the two approaches.
And as for .health, I personally see it as no different from any other non-brand dictionary word being applied for as a TLD. Whether this particular TLD survives or fails will depend on its ability to earn and maintain public trust, or if it is just seen as no better than dot-com as a source of health-related materials. I see no grounds for objection on that name. If it turns out to be useless it won' t be used.
- Evan
it is my considered view that each of the four strings: {amazon, patagonia, nyc, and health} should be allocated only if applicants can be found which meet objective, and feasible criteria. To one or all of the staff managed sites:
https://community.icann.org/display/newgtldrg/{.amazon_OG,.patagonia_OG,.nyc_OG , and .health_OG}
Lacking write permissions to each of these URLs, I've not added my responses, but trust that you will do so before the response period expires. If you would like I can send you text with conventional capitalization.
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:
I am ambivalent about the objections to both .amazon and .patagonia.
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.
First, I suspect the author of this comment may err as to the actual issue.
I doubt that the standing of At Large requires a determination of whether or not an applicant, which may be identified by string contention, not merely exact or partial string match, possibly in another script than the instant application, or an objector, has "exclusive claim" to the string.
Second, I suspect the author of this comment may err as to the necessity of a party bringing an objection having, as a predicate condition, submitted any application, let alone an application for the string associated with the instant application.
Third, I suspect the author of this comment may err as to the necessity of exhaustion of remedies for a legacy registration, under the independent rules for legacy namespaces, adopted when the Corporation was formed and subsequently modified, but never extended to new namespace applications through the numerous drafts of the Applicant's Guidebook, for a registration made a half decade before the Corporation was formed.
Fourth, I suspect the author of this comment may err as to the necessity of any of predicate act by any third party as a precondition for At Large to exercise its standing to object to any application.
With respect I suggest the better course of analysis is to review the record for the grounds for objections, and the standings required of the objectors, here the attempted appropriation of unmistakable regional identifiers by managers of brands intentionally exploited remotely to the identified region, to enhance trademarked merchandise profit margins, with no identifiable benefit to the name originating region, before waiving the standing of At Large based upon some other rational for non-objection.
Independent of the above, I suspect that the Corporation's "outreach" expenditures relative to the 2012 gTLD application process in each region is substantially less than its expenditures in the North American region (domicile of record of the .patagonia applicant) or the European region (domicile of record of the .amazon applicant).
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.
The first of these two independent observations speaks to the duty of an agency of government (United States), or its delegated agency actor, under tha Administrative Procedures Act of 1946, to make effective, not fictional, notice and comment, prior to rule making. The second of these two independent observations speaks to the duty of a market actor cognizant of trademarks to avoid acts likely to increase confusion in the market.
Eric ------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss
Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------
On 1/28/13 3:20 PM, Thomas Lowenhaupt wrote:
"it is hard to imagine an objection that could avoid forcing ICANN to get involved in ..."
Tom, The imagination of your correspondent, whom you quoted above, is more creative than necessary. The issue before the Corporation is whether the proposed contracting party accepts the terms and conditions of the tendered contract. Had the offer been for "tibet", made by the executive branch of government in Beijing, to be operated by a for-profit corporation located in Hong Kong, with an intentionally fictive promise to involve the Tibetan people through their legislative and non-governmental bodies in some central aspect of the financing, operation, and policy development of the ".tibet" registry, it would be a difference without distinction from an offer for "city", made by a municipal executive alone, to be operated by a for-profit corporation located elsewhere, with the effectively fictive promise to involve the residents of the municipality through their legislative and non-governmental bodies in some central aspect of the financing, operation, and policy development of the ".city" registry. The Corporation doesn't need to "get involved in" the politics of anything. It must decide whether or not to take notice of material misrepresentation by applicants, and in the larger scope, accept or decline the liability to the Corporation to any party if it elects to ignore material misrepresentations by applicants as a matter of policy. The Corporation also must decide whether or not the protections for subordinate political and non-political geographical identifiers, extended from the protections offered for the Capital cities of countries and territories associated with iso3166-1 delegated code points makes the applicants for these subordinate political and non-political geographical identifiers sovereigns, with the same unilateral powers (in effect, vacating all contractual obligations but allowing "memoranda of understanding") as the current GAC member states. I appreciate that your interest may be for a particular outcome of a particular application. I think the issue is vastly larger than one application, creating both arbitrary government power where none currently exists, and making contracting with any public entity exercising this extended protection for national capitals vastly more difficult than anyone, in the GAC or the GNSO, ever intended at any time in the past five years of new gTLD policy development. I remain of the view that if the advice responsibilities created in the Corporation bylaws relative to an At Large body and the public interest are to be observed, that the advice must be offered to the Board through the available means, here the objection process. Eric
I am in 97% agreement with Eric. There is a much larger issue at hand that should be adressed. If opinions or objections are requested, we should wholeheartedly do so. I was afraid this would go on with no debate. However, I think Eric's broad statement should also apply across the board to all proposed TLDs. With regard to .NYC, although in my opinion one of the more worthwhile of concepts, and is in a world apart from 90% of the other applicants, is also worthy of scrutiny. I hope we have the energy to fully scrutinize the rest of the applicants. Question: Should NARALO as a group approach commenting/objecting specifically on thses applications? I object to .amazon on many levels. -RJ Glass A@L
________________________________ From: Eric Brunner-Williams <ebw@abenaki.wabanaki.net> To: Thomas Lowenhaupt <toml@communisphere.com> Cc: NARALO Discussion List <na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Sent: Monday, January 28, 2013 7:26 PM Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Opinions requested from the At-Large community on objection comments received on new gTLD applications.
On 1/28/13 3:20 PM, Thomas Lowenhaupt wrote:
"it is hard to imagine an objection that could avoid forcing ICANN to get involved in ..."
Tom,
The imagination of your correspondent, whom you quoted above, is more creative than necessary. The issue before the Corporation is whether the proposed contracting party accepts the terms and conditions of the tendered contract.
Had the offer been for "tibet", made by the executive branch of government in Beijing, to be operated by a for-profit corporation located in Hong Kong, with an intentionally fictive promise to involve the Tibetan people through their legislative and non-governmental bodies in some central aspect of the financing, operation, and policy development of the ".tibet" registry, it would be a difference without distinction from an offer for "city", made by a municipal executive alone, to be operated by a for-profit corporation located elsewhere, with the effectively fictive promise to involve the residents of the municipality through their legislative and non-governmental bodies in some central aspect of the financing, operation, and policy development of the ".city" registry.
The Corporation doesn't need to "get involved in" the politics of anything. It must decide whether or not to take notice of material misrepresentation by applicants, and in the larger scope, accept or decline the liability to the Corporation to any party if it elects to ignore material misrepresentations by applicants as a matter of policy.
The Corporation also must decide whether or not the protections for subordinate political and non-political geographical identifiers, extended from the protections offered for the Capital cities of countries and territories associated with iso3166-1 delegated code points makes the applicants for these subordinate political and non-political geographical identifiers sovereigns, with the same unilateral powers (in effect, vacating all contractual obligations but allowing "memoranda of understanding") as the current GAC member states.
I appreciate that your interest may be for a particular outcome of a particular application. I think the issue is vastly larger than one application, creating both arbitrary government power where none currently exists, and making contracting with any public entity exercising this extended protection for national capitals vastly more difficult than anyone, in the GAC or the GNSO, ever intended at any time in the past five years of new gTLD policy development.
I remain of the view that if the advice responsibilities created in the Corporation bylaws relative to an At Large body and the public interest are to be observed, that the advice must be offered to the Board through the available means, here the objection process.
Eric ------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss
Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------
Hi Randy, On 28 January 2013 22:33, RJ Glass <jipshida2@yahoo.com> wrote: There is a much larger issue at hand that should be addressed.
I'm not sure I agree. Remember. we're not re-arguing the Applicant Guidebook. Many of the really worthwhile debates (and indeed, most of the public-interest issues) related to the gTLD expansion have already, for better or worse (and generally worse), been closed. It's highly likely that many of the large issues you want to be addressed already have been, just not in any way that serves the public interest. ICANN has long ago decided that names -- including gTLDs -- are but commodities, driven by an industry that cares about greatest volume and speculative of names, public interest be damned. Every decision made about the new gTLD expansion has been based on that sad foundation, one which thrives on defensive activity and extracts value from the Internet rather than adding. The only real impediment to unfettered wide-open commoditisation has been imposed -- thanks to massive political clout -- by the legal trademark lobby. But not all names are protected; non-trademark names, such as those of non-profit bodies, common-law brands, aboriginal names and geographical regions without governing bodies are out of luck. In the stupidity that is ICANN names policy, protection of the word "olympic" (which has apparently been under merciless attack by a paint company) is more important than stopping fraudulent use of the name of Oxfarm or other non-favoured charities. In this world, one in which ICANN long ago decided that generic terms at the second level were up for grabs to the highest bidder, the gTLD expansion is just a high-stakes extension of the existing philosophy. And all "objections" made by At-Large have to be done under very specific conditions, the result of a process primarily intended to filter our obscene strings such as ".nazi". The current objection process does not exist to reject applications merely because we don't think they'll serve the public, unless we can identify specific communities that will experience specific harm by misrepresentation. Dev and his team have done an excellent job setting up the process, and it is very detailed in order to stay within the bounds of what we're entitled to object to. Unless a string is obscene or an application misrepresents an identifiable community, we don't have grounds to object (as a formal ALAC objection). That's it. The larger issues have been settled. What is being solicited at this time is CERTAINLY not a free-for-all expression of our feelings about any application or string; that ship sailed long ago. We are to offer feedback on specific comments -- some of them asking ALAC to launch formal objections on their behalf based on the two allowable criteria. This feedback is to be used by dev's group to determine whether justification exists to elevate the objection for greater At-Large and ALAC scrutiny. In this context, there are insufficient grounds *under the available criteria* for At-Large to support the objections raised regarding .amazon, .book, or .cba. I will spend some extra time determining whether the objections to .patagonia and .nyc merit consideration; until now I have been opposed, but based on comments in this thread I am prepared to re-evaluate. I won't necessarily change my mind but I do promise both comments another look. But Randy, please don't think that this cold approach means I disagree with your big-picture concerns. I would simply note here that the last officially-endorsed ALAC statement about the new gTLD program -- made at the Summit and never formally modified or rescinded -- unequivocally called the gTLD expansion program "unacceptable" as a matter of public interest. Current events will indicate to you how well that advice has been heeded. To this day, outside of those of our members who are themselves associated with TLD applications or domain resale, I have a hard time within At-Large finding much enthusiasm for the expansion at all. Indeed, given issues regarding compliance and protection against fraudulent use with existing domains, I still have serious concerns that the expansion program will be damaging to the public interest. As a result, I find myself treating current At-Large approach to the gTLD expansion as an exercise in damage mitigation. My cynicism has strangely led to indifference about the appropriateness of most specific applications, as I sincerely think that most TLDs will crash and burn anyway. Many, many registrants will be hurt along the way, many of them domainers for whom I have zero sympathy. But what can we do along the way to minimize harm to end users, knowing we can't reopen the present gTLD creation process? THAT IMO, is the discussion we need to (continue to) have. Cheers, - Evan
As always, well stated Evan. And, I agree, however some things need to be restated. Your statement as follows.."As a result, I find myself treating current At-Large approach to the gTLD expansion as an exercise in damage mitigation. My cynicism has strangely led to indifference about the appropriateness of most specific applications, as I sincerely think that most TLDs will crash and burn anyway. Many, many registrants will be hurt along the way, many of them domainers for whom I have zero sympathy. But what can we do along the way to minimize harm to end users, knowing we can't reopen the present gTLD creation process?" Again, total agreement. I think the only thing we CAN do to minimize harm is conduct the utmost of due dilligence, which I'm certain will be done. aloha, RJ Glass A@L
________________________________ From: Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> To: RJ Glass <jipshida2@yahoo.com> Cc: "ebw@abenaki.wabanaki.net" <ebw@abenaki.wabanaki.net>; NARALO Discussion List <na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2013 1:16 AM Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Opinions requested from the At-Large community on objection comments received on new gTLD applications.
Hi Randy,
On 28 January 2013 22:33, RJ Glass <jipshida2@yahoo.com> wrote:
There is a much larger issue at hand that should be addressed.
I'm not sure I agree.
Remember. we're not re-arguing the Applicant Guidebook. Many of the really worthwhile debates (and indeed, most of the public-interest issues) related to the gTLD expansion have already, for better or worse (and generally worse), been closed. It's highly likely that many of the large issues you want to be addressed already have been, just not in any way that serves the public interest.
ICANN has long ago decided that names -- including gTLDs -- are but commodities, driven by an industry that cares about greatest volume and speculative of names, public interest be damned. Every decision made about the new gTLD expansion has been based on that sad foundation, one which thrives on defensive activity and extracts value from the Internet rather than adding.
The only real impediment to unfettered wide-open commoditisation has been imposed -- thanks to massive political clout -- by the legal trademark lobby. But not all names are protected; non-trademark names, such as those of non-profit bodies, common-law brands, aboriginal names and geographical regions without governing bodies are out of luck. In the stupidity that is ICANN names policy, protection of the word "olympic" (which has apparently been under merciless attack by a paint company) is more important than stopping fraudulent use of the name of Oxfarm or other non-favoured charities.
In this world, one in which ICANN long ago decided that generic terms at the second level were up for grabs to the highest bidder, the gTLD expansion is just a high-stakes extension of the existing philosophy. And all "objections" made by At-Large have to be done under very specific conditions, the result of a process primarily intended to filter our obscene strings such as ".nazi". The current objection process does not exist to reject applications merely because we don't think they'll serve the public, unless we can identify specific communities that will experience specific harm by misrepresentation.
Dev and his team have done an excellent job setting up the process, and it is very detailed in order to stay within the bounds of what we're entitled to object to. Unless a string is obscene or an application misrepresents an identifiable community, we don't have grounds to object (as a formal ALAC objection).
That's it. The larger issues have been settled. What is being solicited at this time is CERTAINLY not a free-for-all expression of our feelings about any application or string; that ship sailed long ago. We are to offer feedback on specific comments -- some of them asking ALAC to launch formal objections on their behalf based on the two allowable criteria. This feedback is to be used by dev's group to determine whether justification exists to elevate the objection for greater At-Large and ALAC scrutiny. In this context, there are insufficient grounds under the available criteria for At-Large to support the objections raised regarding .amazon, .book, or .cba. I will spend some extra time determining whether the objections to .patagonia and .nyc merit consideration; until now I have been opposed, but based on comments in this thread I am prepared to re-evaluate. I won't necessarily change my mind but I do promise both comments another look.
But Randy, please don't think that this cold approach means I disagree with your big-picture concerns. I would simply note here that the last officially-endorsed ALAC statement about the new gTLD program -- made at the Summit and never formally modified or rescinded -- unequivocally called the gTLD expansion program "unacceptable" as a matter of public interest. Current events will indicate to you how well that advice has been heeded. To this day, outside of those of our members who are themselves associated with TLD applications or domain resale, I have a hard time within At-Large finding much enthusiasm for the expansion at all. Indeed, given issues regarding compliance and protection against fraudulent use with existing domains, I still have serious concerns that the expansion program will be damaging to the public interest.
As a result, I find myself treating current At-Large approach to the gTLD expansion as an exercise in damage mitigation. My cynicism has strangely led to indifference about the appropriateness of most specific applications, as I sincerely think that most TLDs will crash and burn anyway. Many, many registrants will be hurt along the way, many of them domainers for whom I have zero sympathy. But what can we do along the way to minimize harm to end users, knowing we can't reopen the present gTLD creation process?
THAT IMO, is the discussion we need to (continue to) have.
Cheers,
- Evan
I've filters for the na-discuss traffic. I skip the writings of Evan Leibovitch, Carlton Samuels, and Darlene Thompson, which I don't expect comes as a surprise to everyone. Because this was quoted in RJ Glass' post, I saw it. I think it worth comment.
I find myself treating current At-Large approach to the gTLD expansion as an exercise in damage mitigation.
This was not the purpose for which people then associated with At Large, myself included, worked to ensure that the public interest, not restricted to the interests of governments, would have standing to participate in the implementation of the policy defined, in part, in the evolving Draft Applicant Guidebook of the past five years, and at this stage of the implementation process, object to those applications for which a public interest harm is manifest, using what standing to object had been conceded to "At Large" by an indifferently or worse lead Staff, the narrow self interests of the Contracted Parties, and the equally narrow self interests of the remaining primary actors of the GNSO -- the IPC and its captured Constituencies.
My cynicism has strangely led to indifference about the appropriateness of most specific applications,
The author of this remark can cure his cynicism and indifference and carry out the task for which the author "volunteered", displacing others neither cynical nor indifferent, or withdraw and allow others not sharing the strangely linked cynicism and indifference to attempt to carry out the policy for which so much effort by so many was expended.
as I sincerely think that most TLDs will crash and burn anyway.
This is beside the point. Further, as pure, standalone business operations, all of the 2000 round applications failed or found external sources of revenues, as did all of the 2004 round applications, with the single exception of .cat, which was profitable in the 2nd quarter of operations and remains so to the present. NeuStar (.biz/.us) was saved by the North American Numbering Plan Administrator contract revenues ($.01/call terminated in country code "1"), Afilias (.info) was saved by the .org redelgation and legacy revenue. Gier's adventure (.name) failed and was acquired by Verisign, and the .pro mess never even took off. The 2004 recital is no prettier. With external revenues, the minority of 2000 and 2004 round applicants that have survived to cost recovery capable revenues took more than five years to achieve it. Even accepting the "most will fail" conceit, the application of the policy developed for FailOver is not something that should be walked away from. Further, each round is a learning experience, not necessarily for the applicants, many of whom from 2000 and 2004 are defunct, and not necessarily for the Corporation Staff, as the last managerial experience purged much of the 2004 and 2000 round corporate memory, and not necessarily for the Corporation itself, as its tenure is not necessarily indefinite, but for the policy development record, for learning what can, and cannot be done, with the mnemonic-string-to-resource association, and the business models that succeed, and the business models that fail, in the larger environment of settlement-free peering, advertizer pays, trademark primacy, and service-for-fee in a network with no other anchored source of address block or name delegation, and a vast and as yet unpolicied amount of criminal purposing of universal access.
Many, many registrants will be hurt along the way, many of them domainers for whom I have zero sympathy. But what can we do along the way to minimize harm to end users, knowing we can't reopen the present gTLD creation process?
We, assuming that word actually means something, can exercise the current stage of the Dengate-Thrush management period generated process (Rod was just along for the ride and of no consequence) and implemement the process available to "us" to the best of "our" abilities during the Fadi Chehade management period. To minimize the harm to end users we can sure that applicants know that they are required to implement the commitments made in their applications, and that the Corporation knows that it will be the recipient of published advice concerning the public interest, so the process is policied, by the better Staff and the better members of the Board, and the GAC, and the SSAC and RSAC, and yes even by the ALAC, and not by some subset of those, less the ALAC. Doing less than that is surely not going to more effectively minimize the harm to end users. I ran against Evan Leibovitch for a policy role in the last NARALO election because he does not speak for me. Eric Brunner-Williams
On 29 January 2013 15:26, RJ Glass <jipshida2@yahoo.com> wrote:
As always, well stated Evan.
Thanks for the kind words.
I think the only thing we CAN do to minimize harm is conduct the utmost of due dilligence, which I'm certain will be done.
I agree, except for the certainty. We're as good as our volunteers. There is much real work to be done. Take the ,nyc application, for instance, and the proposed objection<https://community.icann.org/display/newgtldrg/.nyc_OG>. The proposal needs to be studied, verified and evaluated before it can be elevated. We know that Tom is here to defend it. We also know that Ken Hansen of Neustar has subscribed to this mailing list, likely for the sole purpose of tracking our discussion and rebutting Tom. Since you're here, Ken, and you're aware of the objection proposal, let's hear the rebuttal sooner rather than later. If there are factual errors in Tom's comment you want to assert, let's know them. There' s nothing wrong in hearing objectively from all sides in a good-faith intent to investigate. But after that, the decision on whether to escalate is something that At-Large needs to make. Just I would be hesitant to act alone on .patagonia before hearing a consensus opinion from the At-Large region from which most objections to it are based, IMO NARALO owes the rest of At-Large some reasoned guidance on whether sufficient public-interest grounds exist (*under the allowed criteria*) to object to the current .nyc application. That means that -- at very least -- NARALO members ought to take a hard look at the .nyc application as well as any contrary information on offer. - Evan
Evan, Thank you for the opportunity to provide additional detail. I greatly appreciate the effort to conduct thorough due diligence, "hearing objectively from all sides in a good-faith intent to investigate." There are inaccuracies, as well as facts and important background information missing from the posting. Since the Application is the City of New York itself, I have reached out to them to discuss a response. Is there a deadline we should keep in mind? Sincerely, Ken ______________________________________________________________________________ Ken Hansen Neustar Registry Services / Sr. Director Business Development, GM .nyc Office: +1.571.434.5361 Mobile: +1.703.625.6312 Twitter: @gTLDNews Skype: kendotus www.neustarregistry.biz Reduce your environmental footprint. Print only if necessary. -----Original Message----- From: na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Evan Leibovitch Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2013 6:31 PM To: RJ Glass Cc: NARALO Discussion List Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Opinions requested from the At-Large community on objection comments received on new gTLD applications. On 29 January 2013 15:26, RJ Glass <jipshida2@yahoo.com> wrote:
As always, well stated Evan.
Thanks for the kind words.
I think the only thing we CAN do to minimize harm is conduct the utmost of due dilligence, which I'm certain will be done.
I agree, except for the certainty. We're as good as our volunteers. There is much real work to be done. Take the ,nyc application, for instance, and the proposed objection<https://community.icann.org/display/newgtldrg/.nyc_OG>. The proposal needs to be studied, verified and evaluated before it can be elevated. We know that Tom is here to defend it. We also know that Ken Hansen of Neustar has subscribed to this mailing list, likely for the sole purpose of tracking our discussion and rebutting Tom. Since you're here, Ken, and you're aware of the objection proposal, let's hear the rebuttal sooner rather than later. If there are factual errors in Tom's comment you want to assert, let's know them. There' s nothing wrong in hearing objectively from all sides in a good-faith intent to investigate. But after that, the decision on whether to escalate is something that At-Large needs to make. Just I would be hesitant to act alone on .patagonia before hearing a consensus opinion from the At-Large region from which most objections to it are based, IMO NARALO owes the rest of At-Large some reasoned guidance on whether sufficient public-interest grounds exist (*under the allowed criteria*) to object to the current .nyc application. That means that -- at very least -- NARALO members ought to take a hard look at the .nyc application as well as any contrary information on offer. - Evan ------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------
Hi Ken, On 31 January 2013 13:26, Hansen, Kenneth <Kenneth.Hansen@neustar.biz>wrote:
Thank you for the opportunity to provide additional detail. I greatly appreciate the effort to conduct thorough due diligence, "hearing objectively from all sides in a good-faith intent to investigate."
There are inaccuracies, as well as facts and important background information missing from the posting. Since the Application is the City of New York itself, I have reached out to them to discuss a response. Is there a deadline we should keep in mind?
You may not have time to defer. I am just now reminded that the Review Group needs to make its initial recommendations whether to escalate the received objections by Feb 8. Of course, even if the RG *does* make such a determination, the issue still has to be debated and ultimately brought to an ALAC vote. - Evan
Thank you Evan. We will keep the time constraints in mind, and submit comments prior to February 8th. Best, Ken ----- Original Message ----- From: Evan Leibovitch [mailto:evan@telly.org] Sent: Friday, February 01, 2013 01:24 PM To: Hansen, Kenneth Cc: NARALO Discussion List <na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Opinions requested from the At-Large community on objection comments received on new gTLD applications. Hi Ken, On 31 January 2013 13:26, Hansen, Kenneth <Kenneth.Hansen@neustar.biz>wrote:
Thank you for the opportunity to provide additional detail. I greatly appreciate the effort to conduct thorough due diligence, "hearing objectively from all sides in a good-faith intent to investigate."
There are inaccuracies, as well as facts and important background information missing from the posting. Since the Application is the City of New York itself, I have reached out to them to discuss a response. Is there a deadline we should keep in mind?
You may not have time to defer. I am just now reminded that the Review Group needs to make its initial recommendations whether to escalate the received objections by Feb 8. Of course, even if the RG *does* make such a determination, the issue still has to be debated and ultimately brought to an ALAC vote. - Evan ------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------
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
participants (7)
-
Dev Anand Teelucksingh -
Eric Brunner-Williams -
Evan Leibovitch -
Hansen, Kenneth -
John R. Levine -
RJ Glass -
Thomas Lowenhaupt