[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [IFWP] Revised bylaw Article VI-B (DNSO subject-matter jurisdiction)
- To: Kent Crispin <kent@SONGBIRD.COM>
- Subject: Re: [IFWP] Revised bylaw Article VI-B (DNSO subject-matter jurisdiction)
- From: Jeff Williams <email@example.com>
- Date: Mon, 12 Apr 1999 00:41:39 +0100
- CC: DOMAIN-POLICY@LISTS.INTERNIC.NET, IFWP Discussion List <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "email@example.com" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "email@example.com" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "email@example.com" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "email@example.com" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "email@example.com" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "email@example.com" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "email@example.com" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "email@example.com" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "email@example.com" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "email@example.com" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "email@example.com" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "email@example.com" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, ICANN SO comments <email@example.com>
- Organization: INEG. Inc.
- References: <19990411075731.A25006@songbird.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <19990411223458.A445@songbird.com>
- Sender: email@example.com
Kent and all,
Kent Crispin wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 11, 1999 at 10:19:30AM -0700, Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote:
- snip other diatribe a la Kent "Crispy" Crispin -
> > In that case, ICANN wouldn't have a choice, as long as it is
> > California-based. In your example, IOD and ICANN are both
> > incorporated under US jurisdiction. Therefore US trademark law
> > applies, definitely, as has been discussed here before. It's a
> > matter of prior use, in trade. If they tried to recognize the German
> > claim, IOD would (probably) hand them a TRO, along with the suit for
> > damages and dilution of mark. The case would never see a German
> > court, if IOD was at all intelligent about it. Please remember also
> > that the defendant is customarily awarded the home court, or choice
> > of venue.
> Once again, you completely miss the point. The point is not that
> ICANN will grant private ownership of a .web TLD to a German
> company; the point is that it WON'T grant ownership to IODesign,
> because of the legal complications. And in fact it won't grant
> private ownership of a TLD to anyone.
ICANN has no power to grant ownership of any TM'ed TLD to anyone
or any company. In that I believe that IOD has a SM on .WEB it is
IOD's decision should they decide to register .WEB or 'WEB" as a
TM. IF or once that is done than ICANN would be in a bit of an
> So IODesign can always try to get its .web going in alternate roots,
> but it will never be in the real roots.
Define "Real Roots".
> However, that doesn't preclude the possibility of there being a
> public interest .web in the real roots. IODesign went to court once,
> and backed down real quick, and, as I have said, I have been told by
> quite competent TM attorneys that they simply don't have a case.
> You mention TROs as if you knew what you were talking about -- IODs
> TRO was denied.
It is true that IOD does not have a strong case from a TM standpoint
as they do not have a TM filed on .WEB or "WEB". This is IMHO a
very short sighted business decision on the part of IOD at this juncture.
> > > And, on the other side of the coin, if ICANN ever adds a privately
> > > "owned" TLD, ICANN will face a whole raft of legal challenges
> > > from other people who want their private TLD in the root.
> > This is completely true. They could not be exclusionary, on a
> > selective basis. They have to either be all-inclusive, or
> > all-exclusive. Half-way is not going to cut it.
> That's right. And it will be all-exclusive, because the
> "all-inclusive" model requires choices being made that will be
> contested in court.
This statement is pure nonsense. In other words such a mindset
in not necessarily the case, nor is it desired by most parties involved,
irrespective of their root server status.
> So the only new TLDs that get in the root are
> going to be run in the public interest, not for private gain.
And this is a good position to take to a point...
> Fortunately, the POC names, with the possible exception of .web, are
> clear of any reasonable IP claims.
Wrong. We have filed TM's on a couple of them.
> Of course, idiots can always
> start groundless suits, but groundless suits don't last.
> > > The basic issue is that ICANN will have the ultimate decision
> > > responsibility for insertion of TLDs in the root; and hence the
> > > ultimate legal liability for those actions. As has been mentioned,
> > > ICANN has been envisioned as a sort of "standards body", with a TLD being
> > > effectively presented as an Internet standard -- and in
> > > order to avoid anti-trust litigation, those standards will have to
> > > be open, non-proprietary standards.
> > This is a point that ICANN hasn't understood yet.
> On the contrary -- ICANN understands perfectly well. It is ORSC that
> fails to understand -- it is ORSC that is trying to get proprietary
> TLDs in the root.
Possibly. I am not convinced of this.
> Kent Crispin "Do good, and you'll be
> firstname.lastname@example.org lonesome." -- Mark Twain
Jeffrey A. Williams
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
Contact Number: 972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208