On 3/26/16, 11:30 PM, "DNSOP on behalf of Andrew Sullivan" <[email protected] on behalf of [email protected]> wrote:
>I guess my point was merely that your examples seemed only to be >arguing from this or that trade or service mark to some conclusion >that the IETF had an obvious problem to contemplate. But the >registrations in 6761 are, not going to be part of such disputes; or, >if they are, it is a problem the IETF will have confronted in its >evaluation. Waving around possible trademark cases as things one >ought to worry about seems to me not to help the discussion. Andrew, This is the crux of the issue. I have a hard time to believe the statement you are making above that future RFC6761 registrations will not be the object of trademark & co disputes. ICANN history has shown us that anything that has a name attached to it is a potentially candidate for such a dispute. It may or may not have been the case for Onion or Local, but we have no guarantees it will not be the case for the following ones. Now, your second statement that the IETF will confront such potential claims during evaluation is where I personally express serious reservations. As I mentioned in a previous email, I do not believe the IETF is well equipped to deal with that. Wishing those issues away is, IMHO, the very thing that is not helping in this discussion. I trust this community to make good technical decisions, but I¹m not ready to sign a blank check on its ability to make good decisions in the trademark/name policy arena. Alain, speaking for myself.
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
