Yeah, that too (and Amen!). Nicolas On 05/09/2012 4:19 PM, Edward Morris wrote: > I would take exception to the claim that allowing so called "closed > garden" gTLD's at all infringes upon nation states "entrenched legal > processes" for obtaining trademark protection. > > It's usually brand owners I need to remind of what appears to be a > little recognized fact: domain names are not trademarks. > Notwithstanding the fact that brand owners want us to treat domain > names as trademarks +, that some UDRP mediators seem to buy this > argument, that we're left fighting attempts to establish extraordinary > protection for famous marks... > > Domain names are not trademarks. Nor are they sui generis i.p. marks. > To sign this letter indicates a belief that in some form they are and > will make it a be a bit more difficult in the futre to coherently > fight efforts by brand owners to further expand their monopoly rights > in the domain ecosphere. > > The concept of a commons in generic terms may be admirable. The > concept stands alone and needs not and should not be linked to > trademark rights. Regrettably the time to make such an argument with > regards to this round of gTlds is in the past. > > > On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 8:17 PM, Kathy Kleiman <[log in to unmask] > <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote: > > Hi All, > I would like to share with you a letter being circulated by > Michele Neylon, the wonderful Blacknight registrar (and the only > registrar in Ireland). It deals with new gTLDs that are "closed > gardens" -- generic words that some companies have applied for as > new gTLDs and will keep "closed" -- not open for general > second-level domain name registration. These include some > applicants for .BLOG and .CLOUD, among many others. > > It's a powerful letter with strong free speech/freedom of > expression arguments. Concerns are shared by registries, > registrars and registrants -- and Michele is looking for Signatories. > > Please take a moment to look at the letter, and let Michele know > if you can sign on (name, organization). Michele is cc'ed on this > email, and can be reached at [log in to unmask] > <mailto:[log in to unmask]> > > ----- > Here's the full version with current signatories : > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZUNlookOWyaSW8lXfi_37zVFsVk9xcxncvmE0uwPEFY/editHere > are two quotes from the > > > Here are two quotes from the letter: > "Based on our collective industry experience, we are of the > opinion that the underlying intention of Section 6 was to allow > for the operation of closed gTLDs only under very defined > circumstances. > Specifically, that closed gTLDs should be reserved for only those > strings in which the applicant possesses established (i.e., > legally recognized) intellectual property rights, basically brand > names. We believe that this interpretation of Section 6 is > inherently logical especially in view of the discussions that > preceded the opening of gTLDs -- which focused, in very large > part, on expanding choices and opportunities as well as promoting > innovation, for Internet consumers worldwide." > > "Further, generic words used in a generic way belong to all > people. It is inherently in the public interest to allow access to > generic new gTLDs to the whole of the Internet Community, e.g., > .BLOG, .MUSIC, .CLOUD. Allowing everyone to register and use > second level domain names of these powerful, generic TLDs is > exactly what we envisioned the New gTLD Program would do. In > contrast, to allow individual Registry Operators to segregate and > close-off common words for which they do not possess intellectual > property rights in effect allows them to circumvent nation-states’ > entrenched legal processes for obtaining legitimate and recognized > trademark protections." > ---- > Best, > Kathy > > Kathy Kleiman > Internet Counsel, Fletcher, Heald & Hildreth > Co-Founder, NCUC > >