Dean Anderson wrote: > On Wed, 28 Apr 2004, Markus Stumpf wrote: > > > No new TLD helps for the overcrowding, as all owners of trademarks > > have to and will register their name and enforce delegation of the name > > by law. > > This isn't true. No one is required by law to register their trademark as > a domain name. IANAL, but in my discussions with lawyers focused on trademark law, in effect they are required. The perception that they are not defending their rights effectively means they abandon them. > > > So at best a new TLD is something like a license to print money for > > the registrar. > > Ok. What's wrong with that? If sponsoring organizations are willing to > pay, they should be sold what they want. Sounds like you are against > commercialization. > > So far, I still haven't heard a _technical_ reason against these TLD's. The technical argument here is flattening of the name space with the associated concentration higher up the tree. There is nothing specific about these strings, but why do they have any more rights than any other string? Why shouldn't trademark owners be able to register the name 'yourtrademarkhere.', or anyone register 'yourpersonalfavoritestring.'? Do you really think the root is the right place for all names? If not, what technical characteristic differentiates strings that should vs. not? /flame-suit-on/ Rather than granting new TLDs, there should be an effort to deprecate the existing non-cc TLDs and move everyone out within 3 years. The historical artifact of a failed experiment is no reason to continue down that path. Tony > > ** What is one thing that will break if these are granted? > > ** Better, what is the complete list of things that will break? > > --Dean > > > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@xxxxxxxx > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf