{ Subject: RE: DNSO Important update: The "Merged" Draft
{ From: "William X. Walsh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
{ Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1999 17:19:49 -0800 (PST)
...
{
{ The interests of 2% of the domain name holders are of EQUAL weight to the
{ interests of 98% of the domain name holders.
{
{ It doesn't matter if my percentages are off 1 or 2 percent, the
{ differences will be just as large, and the unfair and unequal
{ representative of interests will be just as bad.
{
William, you make an excellent point. All the discussants here have
sounded as if *they were the minority party, trying to assert their
rights against an overwhelming clique of trademark-holders. Once we look
at the problem of protecting *minority trademark rights in cyberspace, we
not only have the advantage of decades of physical-world precedent, but a
wider base of familiarity among PW legalists (who need as much help as
they can get).
Trade mark registration does not last forever. Why isnt there a 'sun-
down' clause in c-space? Imo, if trademark 'rights' to domain names were
liable to automatic expiration in 5 yrs, say, a lot of the fractiousness
in the DNSO debate would simply evaporate.
Well, that may be a bit strong. I should say, at least the fractiousness
will go elsewhere.
kerry
__________________________________________________
To receive the digest version instead, send a
blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To SUBSCRIBE forward this message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNSUBSCRIBE, forward this message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Problems/suggestions regarding this list? Email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
___END____________________________________________
