[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Membership] Re: [IFWP] Is Nesson right on the objective? And, how do we reach it?
- To: IFWP Discussion List <email@example.com>, firstname.lastname@example.org
- Subject: [Membership] Re: [IFWP] Is Nesson right on the objective? And, how do we reach it?
- From: Kent Crispin <email@example.com>
- Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 13:51:24 -0800
- In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSI.3.93.990215123014.5960Cfirstname.lastname@example.org>; from Michael Dillon on Mon, Feb 15, 1999 at 12:34:33PM -0800
- Mail-Followup-To: IFWP Discussion List <email@example.com>,firstname.lastname@example.org
- References: <36C5FE80.50C8494F@texoma.net> <Pine.BSI.3.93.990215123014.5960Cemail@example.com>
- Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org
On Mon, Feb 15, 1999 at 12:34:33PM -0800, Michael Dillon wrote:
> I propose that the best way to lessen the likelihood of capture of a
> domain name by the rrichest one of many trademark holders with an interest
> in that domain name, is to maximize the number and diversity of TLDs. Part
> of achieving such diversity is to make all new gTLDs ambiguous just as the
> current three TLDs.
A fascinating change has become apparent in the past couple of weeks:
ICANN has very little hold over the ccTLDs; the WIPO process will
probably therefore be only adopted for gTLDs. Therefore trademark
enforcement will be very difficult in ccTLDs, but easy in gTLDs.
Therefore, it may well be that the trademark interests become the
strongest force for new gTLDs -- the more competition for the
uncontrollable ccTLDs, the better...
Kent Crispin, PAB Chair "Do good, and you'll be
email@example.com lonesome." -- Mark Twain