Clare wrote:
> There are differences in trade mark law in different countries (and
> lawyers also have different opinions on points of law).
...
> There is endless scope for argument as to whether businesses which
> trade under particular names are mean to individuals, or indeed
> vice versa. It is broadly irrelevant, as ICANN is not going to
> change either human nature, nor the laws of any country (and
> contrary to a common assumption on this list, US law is not the
> only relevant law).
>
> What is relevant is how to provide a structure for provision of domain
> names that accomodates as far as reasonably possible the reasonable
> interests of all concerned, and which, of course, is technically
> feasible.
>
When one sees, finally, that mapping a multivariate function such
as trademarks to a univariate function such as domain names is
not equitable to anybody, isnt the next step to see how to get one
function out of the way of the other? ICANN has the potential to
formulate policy that will lead to DNs becoming as invisible to net
commerce as ones computer's BIOS is in its everyday operation.
(Yes I remember Altair...) Why, then, does it seem to accept the
prejudicial assumption that domain names cannot be dissociated
from trademarks? Internet commerce (and international harmony)
will develop a lot easier when this absurdity is disposed of.
> I joined this list hoping to see some answers to these problems, as my
> understanding was that that was what ICANN was supposed to be doing. I
> haven't seen much yet. As my contribution to keeping on point I have
> resolved not to enter into any further irrelevant disputes on points of
> law.
We all join one group or other, hoping that somebody else has the
answers. As your contribution to keeping the discussions here on
point, why not raise a few questions instead?
Cheers,
kerry
