[142080] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (David Conrad)
Fri Jun 17 20:14:00 2011
From: David Conrad <drc@virtualized.org>
In-Reply-To: <21961578.610.1308347946923.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2011 14:13:41 -1000
To: Jay Ashworth <jra@baylink.com>
Cc: NANOG <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Jun 17, 2011, at 11:59 AM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
> FFS, David. I didn't say "new gTLDs". I said, rather specifically,=20=
> "commercial gTLDs", IE: gTLDs *proprietary to a specific commercial=20
> enterprise*. http:///www.apple
The third message (by Eric Brunner-Williams) in the thread I referenced =
mentions "trademark" or "brand" TLDs:
"Finally, because pancakes are calling, the very complainants of=20
squatting and defensive registration (the 1Q million-in-revenue every=20
applicant for an "open", now "standard" registry places in its=20
bizplan), the Intellectual Property Stakeholder Group is also an=20
advocate for trademark TLDs, arguing that possession of $fee and a=20
registry platform contract (there is now a niche industry of boutique=20
".brand" operators-in-waiting) and a $bond establishes an absolute=20
right to a label in the IANA root.
So, rather than memorizing the digits of Pi, for some later public=20
recitation, one could start reciting brand names, for some later=20
public recitation, for as long as there is a single unified root."
See http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/2011-March/034692.html for =
full context.
I didn't bother looking further.
> And no, I had not heard *any noise* that anyone was seriously =
considering
> this up until this announcement.
Interesting data point.
Regards,
-drc
