> From: Dan Busarow <dan@dpcsys.com>
> Maybe someone is multiple registering famous marks but I haven't
> seen it.
(sigh) We've only been discussing this for 4 or 5 years, so perhaps you
missed it. It was Proctor and Gamble, among others. That diarrhea was
one of dozens of names multiple registered in .com, .org and .net, and
they attempted .edu. My reference should have set off alarming
memories.
> For example, many ISP's have both .com and .net.
> There may even be a BCP on that practice.
>
Cough, cough. Most ISPs do not have both .com and .net. And I do not
remember a BCP even remotely suggesting such a thing. I'm pretty sure
that I would have noticed.
> Because they want it and are willing to pay for it. It's really
> that simple. This is not a technological issue, it's business and ego.
Actually, these _are_ technological issues. This is all about keeping
the Internet useful!
How do similarly named entities in different fields both register? We
don't want folks registering in every TLD, so that similarly named
entities can use the Internet.
How long will it take to do the gTLD key signing? How often will the
gTLDs be signed? We don't want bloated TLDs.
Etc, Etc, Etc.
We really need to stop arguing old news.
> It also has nothing to do with perverting the DNS into a directory
> service. They'd come up with something more descriptive if that
> were the case.
>
Then they should!
> I'll add that this client from a tiny town in northern California
> found .arts on her own. I'm not selling anyone on the new gTLD's,
> they're asking. And for the most part I am discouraging them.
> ("you didn't register in .org and .net did you?")
>
Good advice!
And don't forget .edu and .gov and .mil....
> > How about:
> >
> > 2. The same or similar name shall not be registered by the same
> > organization in any other zone of the DNS (such as under a
> > country TLD), unless an individual exception is granted under
> > the registration appeal process (described below).
>
> Mark, from NetNames, already questioned how you would police the original,
> this only makes the situation worse.
>
Police? Are we going to need police?
The same way as .edu and .gov and .mil....
This is the same mechanism for contest of names. It _is_ a subset of
contest of names.
You either want exceptions, or you don't.
But the .arts has to be for arts, and not for diarrhea. Diarrhea by any
other name smells bad.
> You're not going to stop speculators with rules. (The ACP's giving
> added weight to a challenge against a speculator excepted)
If we "are not going to stop speculators with rules", then we might as
well pack up and go home. We _are_ a "policy" advisory body. We are
supposed to write rules.
> Pre-payment will slow down the causual ones. The serious ones
> with serious money will find a way to do it. The only people
> that would be hurt by this are those who feel they have a real
> need to use two or more TLDs.
>
If there is a real need, then there will not be any problem. The
problem arises when the so-called "need" tramples on others.
WSimpson@UMich.edu
Key fingerprint = 17 40 5E 67 15 6F 31 26 DD 0D B9 9B 6A 15 2C 32
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Jan 30 2000 - 03:22:25 PST