X-Apparently-To: [log in to unmask] via 66.196.100.186; Wed, 06 Jun 2007 12:36:46 -0700 X-Originating-IP: [192.0.35.121] Authentication-Results: mta433.mail.mud.yahoo.com from=gnso.icann.org; domainkeys=fail (bad syntax) Received: from 192.0.35.121 (EHLO greenriver.icann.org) (192.0.35.121) by mta433.mail.mud.yahoo.com with SMTP; Wed, 06 Jun 2007 12:36:45 -0700 Received: from greenriver.icann.org (greenriver [127.0.0.1]) by greenriver.icann.org (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id l56JWKHv019451; Wed, 6 Jun 2007 12:32:20 -0700 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by greenriver.icann.org (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11/Submit) id l56JWKW7019450; Wed, 6 Jun 2007 12:32:20 -0700 X-Authentication-Warning: greenriver.icann.org: majordomo set sender to [log in to unmask] using -f Received: from pechora2.lax.icann.org (pechora2.lax.icann.org [208.77.188.37]) by greenriver.icann.org (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id l56JWJ1Z019447 for <[log in to unmask]>; Wed, 6 Jun 2007 12:32:19 -0700 Received: from web58714.mail.re1.yahoo.com (web58714.mail.re1.yahoo.com [66.196.100.191]) by pechora2.lax.icann.org (8.13.7/8.13.7) with SMTP id l56JWBgF019242 for <[log in to unmask]>; Wed, 6 Jun 2007 12:32:16 -0700 Received: (qmail 36376 invoked by uid 60001); 6 Jun 2007 19:32:09 -0000 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=X-YMail-OSG:Received:Date:From:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Message-ID; b=Q4nEZQ+dZD7zNqAmLyGoCOiVTpoD32cypbBdWt9fXGEavl9WJ+LHIwa67nhHIl2U3241CbxuS71Ig92brOaGuT3RZ8xEcOEnEWQCMzVYfxdMxxDkAsmw0vPmSEcXrwvsF8mAOHy5O+zIOcKr3NzXM60YyzW6airqRcjGsHws7ro=; X-YMail-OSG: Vy28kDMVM1m6bjrQqQWAN4Dbaqv3AFrleW.9LjT6VVGoQ2AhDSO0BqcbspA6eYQ.Xx3BdHzB3g-- Received: from [67.119.114.57] by web58714.mail.re1.yahoo.com via HTTP; Wed, 06 Jun 2007 12:32:09 PDT Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2007 12:32:09 -0700 (PDT) From: Mawaki Chango <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: [gtld-council] Regarding non-commercial interests in the gTLD market To: [log in to unmask] In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.88.7/3369/Wed Jun 6 12:12:37 2007 on pechora2.lax.icann.org X-Virus-Status: Clean X-Greylist: Recipient e-mail whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-1.6 (pechora2.lax.icann.org [208.77.188.37]); Wed, 06 Jun 2007 12:32:16 -0700 (PDT) Sender: [log in to unmask] Precedence: discussion Content-Length: 1115 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by mx6.syr.edu id l56MTtvr008246 Hello, --- Bruce Tonkin <[log in to unmask]> wrote: [snip] >=20 > On the freedom of speech argument - there is no direct > correlation > between non-commercial organisations and freedom of speech > they are > different concepts. Commercial organisations that support > freedom of > speech may outnumber non-commercial :-) Then it makes perfect sense to agree to NCUC's proposed amendment to Recom.3, doesn't it? NCUC proposed version" "...The process for introducing new gTLDs must make proper allowance for third party rights, including trademark and freedom of expression rights..." After all, as Robin rightly questions on behalf of NCUC, why be concerned of only a specific set of rights here? Provisions like this seem to "annex" the Internet name policy to a particular group of stakeholders. Trademark rights are not universal, or how would you say that, across borders. The court cases that Robin cited seem to me to match what I know from the French system to be the notion of "class" for trademarks. E.g., "Bordelais" is or may be a trademark (I haven't checked the records but the name is famous enough as AOC "appelation d'origine controll=E9e") in the world of wines & "spiritueux" (class). But the world can still be used in another category (or class) or activities, for other purposes than qualifyng a certain quality of alcohol. So it is a concept that limit trademark rights to specific domains, making the name available for other purposes, including controversial speeches about the trademark as the US court cases show.=20 In other words, by just singling out the need the need to protect trademarks against corresponding domain name registration, we are taking the risk to collapse the Internet domain name space ad the trademark domains of rights, ultimately equating the value of a domain name to that of a trademark. That is a possibility (and I'm aware it's a historical shift that has been happening in the governance of the Internet), but it certainly not a neutral choice - as neutral as one could expect. Thanks, Mawaki =20