[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [IFWP] RE: Trademarks vs DNS
Roeland and all,
Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote:
> At 08:39 PM 2/15/99 -0800, William X. Walsh wrote:
> >On 16-Feb-99 Dr Eberhard W Lisse wrote:
> >> > Oh, I agree with you entirely, unless, for instance, the chartering
> >> > authority were to take care of that for you by, say, issuing valid PGP
> >> > before a domain application was even possible.
> >> I don't follow. How would verification of the sender allow automatic
> >> determination of content?
> >Say for example, that some international accrediting group for Penguin
> > Scientists issues a PGP encrypted coupon for a domain name in the
> .penguin TLD
> >to each of their members. They would have to submit this coupon along with
> >their domain application to validate that they "belong" to this group and thus
> >meet the charter.
> That's a good idea.
> >My problem with all of this is that we are limiting the use of a string to
> >particular purpose. .penguin could also be used for other purposes, and to
> >restrict the use of that string to a particular purpose ONLY basically strikes
> >me badly.
> NOW we go back up a few thousand feet to the primary question, do TLD
> charters serve a purpose? In this specific context, will they help with the
> TM vs DNS problem? Bill and Marty both say that they will. Personally, I
> have always believed in making room for both chartered and unchartered
> TLDs. However, the practical TM reality may make unchartered TLDs
> vulnerable to a lot of TM litigation induced churn. A functioning charter
> may actually help protect the TLD members from this. Since this favours
> stability it may be a good thing.
Roeland, the problem with there being a concern with TM litigation
against a specific registrant within a particular Name Space (TLD)
rests upon the current law regarding that specific Domain and its
proposes, including the question of dilution. As has been seen
lately (Pokey.org, Veronica.org, and now Earth.com), we are seeing that
the TM interests have been found time and time again overzealous in
pursuing owners of Domains unjustifiable, and without the clear mandate
of trademark law. Hence it is would seem incumbent upon the Trademark
Holder filing against a Domain Name owner to prove his case in the initial
filing and comply with the current trademark law (US), in order for that
filing to be considered valid. As such, this does not serve the TM holder
to have chartered TLD's as there is not intrinsic protection that is in compliance
with current TM law per se.
> What would be interesting to note is whether TM litigation rates went up
> when NSI stopped enforcing the existing charters.
> >I've yet to see an example of it that isn't wrought with problems. Someone
> >said .doctor be administer by the AMA, but they means that other "doctors" who
> >are not medical doctors are deprived of the use of a string that also
> >identifies them. Now, say we had .doctor, we could delegate md.doctor to the
> >AMA and they could then issue names as they please.
> >Even .EDU has real issues surrounding its use. 2 year degree granting
> >institutions cannot register names, neither can other educational institutions
> >that are not 4 year degree granting. But someone decided that .edu should
> >represent 4 year degree institutes.
> >Does that unfairly limit the ability of others who could make good use of that
> The scenario you are discussing here is, in reality, a very badly formed
> charter, with a TLD that is managed very poorly and without forethought. I
> submit that this type of mis-management can not be regulated away. Someone
> will find some other way to make a boneheaded move. Please rest assured of
> that. It also gets to the implementation question of who approves TLD
> charters. It is a question expressly avoided until now.
Good points here Roeland, We agree entirely. The Stakeholders collectively
by majority Vote should make the determination upon that approval of any
TLD charter that may be considered, and as to whether even Charters
are a solution to a TM vs DN concern.
> Roeland M.J. Meyer -
> e-mail: mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org
> Internet phone: hawk.lvrmr.mhsc.com
> Personal web pages: http://staff.mhsc.com/~rmeyer
> Company web-site: http://www.mhsc.com
> KISS ... gotta love it!
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