Roeland and all,
Good points here Roeland, and I concur completely. I just wish you
would not have let the cat out of the bag so to speak. >;)
Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote:
> At 12:52 PM 3/1/99 -0800, Greg Skinner wrote:
> >"Roeland M.J. Meyer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> I would posit that we have just found the natural process by which
> >> new TLDs will have to be created. Further, as Marty, Bill, and I
> >> discussed earlier on this list, all SLDs and other domains,
> >> registered within this TLD, can be protected behind the TLD's
> >> charter. It gets even more interesting in that, since the
> >> trademark-holder is held responsible for maintaining the quality of
> >> that mark, they can NOT be coerced into allowing other registrars to
> >> register domains in that TLD, on the simple argument of "quality
> >> control".
> >
> >I think if this goes through, organizations will start registering TLDs in
> >their own name, and we will hit the TLD safe limit a lot faster than
> >we would otherwise.
>
> All the more reason to table some of these nit-wit games. All of this "you
> can't do that" BS, when there is a natural legal process, that will work,
> is extremely counter-productive. Of course, the registry controls the TLD.
> Of course, they can be for-profit if they so choose. Of course, they do NOT
> have to share out to registrars. Of course, gTLD's are on a par with ccTLDs
> wrt to autonomous operations. etc. etc. etc.
>
> Like the "treaty of Versailles" was the true cause of WW2, excessive
> restrictions on gTLDs would cause this method to come into wide-spread use.
> Too much delay and it'll happen anyway. Try to say "No gTLDs" and it'll
> happen sooner. Try to force ADR and it'll happen. Claiming TLD space as a
> public preserve will make this happen. I personally know at least one
> company preparing for this strategy right now, possibly two, there may be
> more. Certainly WEB and PER can be positioned to file trademarks on their
> respective TLDs and, I believe, both are operating for-profit commercial
> registries, in their respective TLDs. There is nothing stopping them from
> following this course, anyone with a famous mark could do it now (IBM, ATT?).
>
> The counter to this scenario is to come up with a real DNSO document that
> all can live with. The socialist hard-liners have to recognize reality, as
> I had to recognize that the trademark contingent wasn't going away real
> soon. It might very well be that TLDs will have to be trade marked. I don't
> know, but we have to break through to a solution or natural events will
> over-take the process.
>
> Please, don't take this as a threat or a hard-line position statement. I am
> simply following the findings, as currently understood. The method I have
> outlined is not one I personally prefer, or one that I think is good for
> the well-being of the Internet. But, there is no way I can think of to stop
> anyone from using it other than to present a credible and palatable
> alternative.
> ___________________________________________________
> 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!
Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Contact Number: 972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
