Said TM "experts" discount all TLDs as distinguishing one SLD name
from another, so they want to reduce the number of TLDs to only one.
And of course as soon as they achieve this, they will have shifted the
entire problem down one level to the 3LD level, because with only one
TLD, all SLD names are equivalent to being TLDs, and they will have to
go after the next level down.
The reality is that the TM folks can only massage their problem up and
down the DNS tree, but cannot make it go away, until they accept that
higher level names qualify and distinguish lower level names from each
other.
And, when this reality dawns on them, they will see that more TLDs
will in fact solve their problems by providing lots of qualifiers and
differentiators. How many "qualifier" categories does TM law already
recognize? Why should DNS have any fewer the TM? Why not lots more?
The market structure failure remains the primary cause of the NSI
monopoly, regardless of what TM interests think, or want to do about
it. If there were (originally) more TLDs to compete with NSI, then
NSI would not be the monopoly that it is now. And, the longer the
Market structure Failure continues, the longer it will take to unravel
the problems.
But, in any case, the root of the DNS problems we are facing is found
in the limited number of gTLDs that are now allowed. That is why so
many ccTLDs are being sucked into the gTLD market vacuum and used as
gTLDs, in spite of their supposed non-gTLD "mission" in life.
So, where in all of the grand ICANN schemes is the ICANN solution for
the root of the problem? Namely the Market Structure Failure problem?
Let me guess: Oh Yes, There it is -- Monopoly Cartel Control of the
entire DNS, with 10's of thousands of registered and certified
registrars and a few carefully controlled shared registries!
How better to extract ICANN taxes from all concerned?
Cheers...\Stef
PS: NO TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION!!!!!!!!!
>From your message Fri, 12 Feb 1999 13:04:52 -0800 (PST):
}
}Einar Stefferud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
}
}>My candidate for the main meta problem is that:
}
}>The US Govt Created a Market Structure Problem (only 3 useful gTLDs)
}>by not applying proper oversight to the evolution of the DNS, and thus
}>spawned a Monopoly (NSI), whose very existstence many people think is
}>"the problem".
}
}According to what some of the trademark experts have written, even if there
}were more TLDs, they would not be sufficient to properly identify all
}trademarked names in their appropriate contexts. So it seems to me
}more of a technological limitation than a market structure failure.
}
}However, I agree that the USG did not provide sufficient oversight in the
}decision to grant NSI the right to charge for domain names.
}
}--gregbo
