Hello,
As I stated on the ORSC list, I will be focusing exclusively on this issue
for the duration. These discussions tend to take four to six weeks, so be
it. IMHO, we need to get enough agreement that the Paris and Washington DC
drafts can be reconciled. Let's see if we can ignore the flame-wars, set
aside our recalcitrance, and come to enough of a consensus that we can
stomp this problem.
The first question I have is whether we want to restrict this to the IFWP
list, or one of the other lists? IMHO, the IFWP list seems to be neutral
ground. Posting to all four lists is a PITA for everyone.
Second is more of a request, please keep this subject line intact. Eudora
isn't all that good as a threaded mail reader. No, I don't use procmail.
Third, can we use the message from Vint Cerf as a starting point?
Also, I specifically invite Martin Schwimmer, and Bill Lovell, others are
equally welcome. The waters should be getting warmer <grin>. But not too warm.
Since I am NOT a lawyer, I see myself as more of a facilitator in this
thread. This will not stop me from asking questions and proposing points. I
think this make it a first-ever facilitated on-line discussion <grin>,
we'll see how well it works.
The rules are;
1) Engage the safety and check your flame-thrower at the door. Even if this
isn't the ORSC list, keep it civil.
2) Analogies and metaphors cause more damage and distraction then
understanding. Let's not.
3) Most of us are fairly versed on sufficient legalese that it wont be a
problem. But, let's try and keep it in English anyway.
4) The evidence of completion is when we can agree to a set of principles
that will let us merge this part of the drafts DNSO into a single view that
all of us can live with.
At 03:28 PM 2/9/99 -0800, Einar Stefferud wrote:
>Now, as for the structural aspects of the TM/DNS conflict, the main
>problem as I see it is that there are not enough TLDs to afford all TM
>owners of the same name to also have unique DNS names with differnet
>TLD "qualifiers" which serve the same role in DNS that commercial
>categories serve in "commerce" to allow the ame name to by used
>without confusion.
>
>A major problem seems to be that many people do not see the TLD name
>as serving this role of differentiation among uses of the same TM
>name.
>
>But, the fact is the NMA.COM and NMA.ORG are very different names,
>though this fact of differentiation has not yet soaked into the minds
>of Internet Users and the TM industry.
I assume you all have read Vint's message. Stef says this again, in a
slightly different way. Essentially, this is the problem. There are some
obvious questions from this;
Why to TM attorney's always ignore the administrative portion of the name
(the TLD), in their suits? Is there some issue with trademark law that
requires them to do this? If there is no such requirement then why do it?
What is to be gained?
___________________________________________________
Roeland M.J. Meyer -
e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
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!
