It seems very twisted that, on the one hand, we have UDRP -- which is 
not so popular among civil society advocates and academics for it being 
very much pro-TM -- while on the other we have registrars and service 
providers still beating the drums of "hurry up before macdonalds.com 
gets grabbed by a cybersquatter". The many benefits of UDRP, from the 
perspective of TM owners, are precisely to have lowered dramatically the 
cost (including time) of obtaining an ill-used name. In this context, it 
almost seems misleading to suggest that one should buy out everything 
closely resembling a branded alphanumeric string before someone goes 
ahead and misuse it.

I realize that there are hurdles in crafting good law/regulations, and 
many unforeseen consequences can arise. But limiting advertising 
freedom, I would think, is hardly the type of regulation that naturally 
prompts some of those unforeseen consequences. In Canada, for example, 
certain classes of goods cannot do "lifestyle" advertising, while others 
cannot advertise directly to minors. Food advertising is thoroughly 
regulated. Very little unforeseen consequences as arisen out of those 
"laundry list" types of don't.

In the case of SLD, it might also have the added benefit of forcing 
Supply to actually think about what it is that the naming system could 
in principle become, and what kind of naming innovation they are 
actually selling. Advertizing is always innovative, and it could very 
much drive service innovations in it's wake.

Again, just thinking out loud.

Nicolas

On 8/30/2011 2:47 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote:
>
> Actually this kind of marketing has been going on for years with or 
> without new TLDs.
>
> I have gotten emails regularly over the years advising me to register 
> <whatevernameI have> in every TLD, including .cn, and to register 
> every alphabetic variation of it.
>
> Lauren is an old school internet type who has never quite gotten 
> adjusted to the fact that the DNS has been commercialized.
>
> To answer your question directly, no, I don't think there is any way 
> that we want ICANN to try to exert control over how people market 
> things, unless fraud is involved.
>
> *From:*NCSG-Discuss [mailto:[log in to unmask]] *On Behalf 
> Of *Nicolas Adam
> *Sent:* Sunday, August 28, 2011 5:24 PM
> *To:* [log in to unmask]
> *Subject:* [NCSG-Discuss] Fwd: "Domain Protection Racket" Promotion on 
> Network Solutions Home Page
>
>
> You'll notice the "Protect Your Brand", in the center. It's not as big 
> as the criticism below make it to be but it's there.
>
> Would it be relevant and/or feasible to 'regulate' (read 
> encourage/constrain ==> through types of means that i will leave open 
> to discussion) the way registrar can market those new TLD?
>
> First, it doesn't look good.
>
> Second, while i don't think anybody (except perhaps established 
> registrars) who are in favor of gTLD expansion have a clear view of 
> what the emergent system of naming and names will or should be, i am 
> pretty sure no-one so disposed would care to advocate that this system 
> should establish itself mainly as a protection scheme.
>
> Is forcing advertising to depart with the protection rhetoric a step 
> forward? Is it feasible?
>
> Just some thoughts.
>
> Nicolas
>
> -------- Original Message --------
>
> *Subject: *
>
> 	
>
> [ NNSquad ] "Domain Protection Racket" Promotion on Network Solutions 
> Home Page
>
> *Date: *
>
> 	
>
> Sun, 28 Aug 2011 12:42:23 -0700
>
> *From: *
>
> 	
>
> Lauren Weinstein <[log in to unmask]> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>
> *To: *
>
> 	
>
> [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>
> "Domain Protection Racket" Promotion on Network Solutions Home Page
>   
> This "in your face" promotion currently running on the Network
> Solutions home page clearly illustrates how the current top-level
> domains (gTLD) expansion plan is akin to a traditional "Sign up now or
> something bad might, uh, happen to you, buddy!" protection racket.
>   
> http://j.mp/ofrzyv   (Lauren's Blog - Screen capture from networksolutions.com)
>   
> As you can see, there is no concept of community service, social
> responsibility, or even real "value-added" benefits.  The promotion
> for two TLDs is explicitly about *protection* -- as in protecting
> yourself from someone else grabbing those domains and making you look
> bad, confusing your customers, and worse -- whether you have any real
> interest in those TLDs or not.
>   
> And this is *only the beginning*, my friends.
>   
> --Lauren--
> Lauren Weinstein ([log in to unmask]  <mailto:[log in to unmask]>):http://www.vortex.com/lauren
> Co-Founder: People For Internet Responsibility:http://www.pfir.org
> Founder:
>   - Network Neutrality Squad:http://www.nnsquad.org
>   - Global Coalition for Transparent Internet Performance:http://www.gctip.org
>   - PRIVACY Forum:http://www.vortex.com
> Member: ACM Committee on Computers and Public Policy
> Blog:http://lauren.vortex.com
> Google+:http://vortex.com/g+lauren
> Twitter:https://twitter.com/laurenweinstein  
> Tel: +1 (818) 225-2800 / Skype: vortex.com
>   
>