Re: [gtld-com] Commitee conclusions version 3

[Chun Eung Hwi <ehchun@peacenet.or.kr>]

Dear Jeff Neuman,

Thank you for your clarification!
I agree to some of your points.
I also want to clarify my points.


On Thu, 17 Apr 2003 15:33:57 -0400, Neuman, Jeff <Jeff.Neuman@Neustar.us> 
wrote:

> At some point in the future I will go to more detail, but the simple 
> answer
> to your question Chun is that while these TLDs may not be trademarks, 
> they
> do represent brands.

Precisely speaking, TLDs could be just part of brands, but not brands as 
they are.
When second level name is added to TLDs, they could become one perfect 
brands.


> Yes, they are generic in the sense that they allow
> registration from all over the word and are not tied to a specific 
> locality,
> but the registrants who use those names expect that their TLD will have
> significance (at least that is the hope of us operators).  Many operators 
> of
> TLDs hope that that their TLD will be a place where consumers will one 
> day
> know and understand the brand and others will know that if you are 
> looking
> for a museum (for example), you can find them in .museum.  We hope that 
> when
> a consumer types in .museum that they will know that it is a certified
> museum (certified by an specific authentication body).  If ICANN were
> allowed to adopt a .museo for example, for museums, consumer confusion 
> would
> seem to be evident if that new TLD did not follow the exact same policies
> and procedures and did not have the same exact authentication body.  
> While
> they may not be trademarks, operators of TLDs spend a lot of money and
> effort in establishing a brand (no differently as a trademark owner 
> spends a
> lot of money in establishing their own brands).  Just because they are 
> not
> officially trademarks, should not mean that they do not deserve any for 
> of
> protection.

What you mean seems to be just simply typographical confusion.



> On the separate issue of consumer choice, I agree that consumer choice
> should be respected for domain names.  For example, if a prospective 
> domain
> name registrant is a travel related business, they should be able to 
> choose
> whether to have a .com, .biz, .info, .travel, .web or a .aero.  But I
> personally do not believe that consumer choice would be limited in any 
> way
> if ICANN refuses to establish a .commercial, .business, .information or
> .air.

Here, you are pointing out variants or derived words.


Basically, I agree that the above-mentioned typographically confusion or 
varients or derived words from the existing TLDs should be avoided for the 
expansion of TLDs. In this way, I want to specify those possible cases 
rather than using the notion of "confusingly similar" because it is too 
comprehensive and could be misleading. Another issue concerned with IDNs 
are referred to my other messages.


Regards,

Chun Eung Hwi

-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------
Chun Eung Hwi
General Secretary, PeaceNet | phone:     (+82) 2-2166-2216
Seoul Yangchun P.O.Box 81   |   pcs:     (+82) 019-259-2667
Seoul, 158-600, Korea       | eMail:   ehchun@peacenet.or.kr
---------------------------------------------------------------