Stef and all,
Einar Stefferud wrote:
> I think the best move for us to take is to just start using the
> Trademarking of Private and Prospective TLDs and be done with it. It
> is a silly thing to try to use qas a hammer to get ICAN to back off.
> They do not listen to or respond to threats! They react to real live
> action. And since this nice TM avenue is just sitting there waiting
> to be used, lets just go for it!
Now you are talking Stef!!! >;) Let us all see if you follow through now...
>
>
> Can we use the ORSC staging root so show that TLD names have in fact
> been put in commerce?
IF they are used in commerce you should have no problem in doing so.
>
>
> Cheers...\Stef
>
> >From your message Mon, 01 Mar 1999 15:08:18 -0800:
> }
> }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
