I do not disagree that DNs have real economic value, despite the fact
that this was not the intent of the DNS. The problem is not in the
"property" value of the DN. Rather, the conflict is that the laws of
many countries have sanctioned the view that DNs are not only valuable
properties because they can be bought and sold, but also because large
corporate interests have successfully argued that DNs are essentially
trademarks. This added value in the perceived property value of DNs has
been harmful for individual DN owners as well as many other
non-commercial interests in cyberspace. Consequently, the implementation
of new gTLDs, if there are any (and I think there should be) must
alleviate the trademark value of DNs. I think this can be done without
necessarily affecting the value of DNs for individual DN owners. We must
remember that DNs were valuable before they became trademarks (indeed,
some of the most valuable DNs cannot become Trademarks under U.S. law,
at least).
> We must be cautious,
> >however, of the potential negative effects on user's ability to find
> >websites, if there is a proliferation of TLDs. We should also be mindful
> >of the dubious ability to permanently limit registrations under
> >specialized TLDs in a competitive marketplace (of registries).
> >
> Please elaborate a little more.
My point here is really in response to the position by some that the new
gTLDs should be specialized like *.gov, *.net (no longer restricted),
*.mil and perhaps some of the ccTLDs. In other words, if *.web becomes
one of the new TLDs, it should be restricted to say websites owned by
christians (hypothetical). My position is that regardless of the
restriction (religion is one that most of us may see problems with?),
they are not a good idea for gTLDs. Restricted DNs would not alleviate
any of the current problems we are now facing, and could probably
introduce new problems. Consequently, I think if there are to be new
gTLDs (and, if ICANN is the proper body to decide such), the new ones
should really be generic and unrestricted.
I hope this clearifies my points a little.
>
> --Joop Teernstra LL.M.-- , bootstrap of
> the IDNO Association,
> the constituency for Individual Domain Name Owners
> http://www.idno.org
> -
> This message was sent via the IDNO-DISCUSS mailing list. To unsubscribe,
> send a message containing the line "unsubscribe idno-discuss" to
> majordomo@idno.org. For more information, see http://www.idno.org/
--
Rod Dixon Visiting Assistant Professor of Law Rutgers University School of Law - Camden rod@cyberspaces.org http://www.cyberspaces.org - This message was sent via the IDNO-DISCUSS mailing list. To unsubscribe, send a message containing the line "unsubscribe idno-discuss" to majordomo@idno.org. For more information, see http://www.idno.org/