On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 11:25 AM, Joel Wiramu Pauling <joel@aenertia.net> wrote:

>> Makes no sense; if a party feels that a 2ld is diluting their brand
>> then they should have to demonstrate that they have taken steps to
>> protect it - AKA Trademark laws.
>

I think you are missing out on how the free market economy works. If
you can't afford to hire peons to sit at the head of the line, and

Yes, but this is not exactly a free market. Domains are regulated by the DNC.�

I also think that it is important that any process that is decided reduces the the chance of lawyers getting involved. As you say, anyone who has the interest and�capacity to fund this is likely already paid for a trademark and maybe received a 3rd TLD from another holder on that basis.

Why create process for a new 2nd TLD�domain structure, then let domain holders with similar 3rd TLD argue who has the rights to this new domain.�

In the case of one existing trademarks, then the trademark holder will likely have a greater right to the new domain. Otherwise, it's a made for lawyers bank balance moment.

In the unlikely event that a domain holder was a 3 TLD, longer than another 3 TLD with trademark. Then I'm sure the trademark holder can argue that they have a greater right through the existing disputes process.

Nicholas�