In rebuttal, When Corporations own the very words we speak, what will that do to our daily communication? Lou On 9/5/2012 5:03 PM, Andrei Barburas wrote: > Hello all, > > Edward, allow me to contradict you regarding this statement: > > "/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 best example I can give, is Amazon.com which is an actual > trademark (Amazon with and without the dotcom; a list of their > trademarks can be found here: > http://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html/?nodeId=200738910) > > This issue was discussed in one of our previous mailings regarding > "generic" words, like fruits and everyday items. > > > > *Andrei Barburas* > > Community Relations Services Officer > > International Institute for Communication and Development (IICD) > > P.O. Box 11586, 2502 AN The Hague, The Netherlands > > > Mobile: +31 62 928 2879 > > Phone: +31 70 311 7311 > Fax: +31 70 311 7322 > Website: www.iicd.org <http://www.iicd.org/> > > **People ********ICT Development** > > > > > On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 10:19 PM, Edward Morris > <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> > 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 > > >