At 11:33 PM 3/29/99 -0800, you wrote:
>
>On 30-Mar-99 Bill Lovell wrote:
>> At 09:29 PM 3/28/99 -0800, you wrote:
>> >
>> > At 07:02 PM 3/28/99 -0800, Bill Lovell wrote:
>> > >At 04:53 PM 3/26/99 -0500, you wrote:
>> > >>>>We're talking past each other. In your example, the regulator does
>> > >NOT own "KOIN," "WPBS," etc., in spite of the fact that it "owns,"
>> > >i.e., has control of, that spectral space. :-)
>> >
>> > Bill,
>> >
>> > This doesn't appear to square with what we discussed earlier on the
"DNS vs
>> > Trademarks" thread. If I may summarize the process we were last
discussing,
>> > * Create a TLD charter
>> > * Trademark the TLD
>> > * put it into operation.
>> > * Defend, in court, if need be (and probably win).
>>
>> I've been learning a few things. One of which is that I've begun to look at
>> things in
>> functional terms rather than mere appearances. (I suffered for some time
>> from
>> the NSI fungus growth on my brain, but I'm clearing up quite nicely now,
>> thank
>> you.)
>>
>> a) I'm not sure what you mean above by a "TLD charter," unless it is that
>> you
>> "ordain" some set of symbols to be a TLD -- by fiat, you create a TLD.
>
>I believe the refers to the "charter" meaning that will spell out what type of
>registration is or is not appropriate for that TLD, such as the failed charter
>of net/org/com.
I still don't see what "sniff test" one runs to determine whether or not a
TLD is "chartered." Is it an acknowledgment from the gods who run the
internet that, yes, that TLD is acceptable and shall be used for a routing
code on the internet? Would not all TLDs have to pass that test? If I
went downstairs here and set up .cat as a TLD and told everyone in the
world, like some are doing, that "tom.cat" would really be a cool domain
name, please send money, would not the world in its entirety have to
jump into their computers and adjust the routing so everything that comes
into their shop would have to be set up so as to accommodate (i.e., route
traffic to) that idiot lawyer out in Oregon? Where do I get the stones to try
that? Don't the internet gods have something to say about which idiots get
such treatment and which don't?
Bill Lovell
I have expressed in the past, and will continue to, a strong
>oppposition to the notion that TLDs must be "chartered." I find most charters
>to be flawed on the most basic levels, with few if any exceptions. We've
>debated this before, however, so I won't revist it here at the moment.
>
>
>> b) If the TLD serves functionally as routing code, I doubt that it is
itself
>> amenable
>> to serve as an indicator of source of goods and services. If I want to form
>> a
>> company called "CAT" that acts as a registrar, registry or whatever, and
>> being not too stupid I decide to use .cat as the TLD within which everyone
>> may find all my customers, well hooray for me, but I believe it would
be the
>> company name that would be subject to trademark protection, not the TLD
>> itself. The difference is that the choice of the company name is entirely
>> my
>> own, and I can spend my time building up good will for that name. The
>> choice
>> of a TLD is not an entirely free matter: don't people have to talk to each
>> other
>> so that we don't have identical TLDs springing up all over the place?
Isn't
>> there
>> some bureaucratic entity that "passes on" the entry of new TLDs? I don't
>> believe it's true that ICANN -- whoops, excuse me -- I can grab up by
divine
>> right whatever little string I want and force the rest of the internet to
>> accept
>> my choice. Any set of symbols that -- and not to exaggerate too much here
>> --
>> requires international approval for use as a routing code (i.e., TLD) can
>> hardly
>> be subject to trademark protection. Someone tell me why a TLD is anything
>> other than a routing code. (And the same as to a domain name, for that
>> matter.)
>>
>> It's a convention, like BBROYGBVGW -- anyone know what that means?
>> It's the color code on resistors, expressing their resistance in ohms. When
>> you (or ICANN, NTIA, UNESCO, NAACP, NFL or whoever) agrees that Sam
>> down the street gets the TLD .sam, then bully for him, but whatever
>> relationship that may have with Sam's real business and whatever its
>> trademarks may be would be quite nebulous.
>>
>
>Thank you Bill, you bring up a point I have tried to make in the past
about why
>trademarks will most likely not be found to be supportive of claims to TLD
name
>space, though you've spelled it out much better than my non-law trained mind
>did at the time :)
>
>
>> >
>> > Yes, I understand, primarily from *your* explanation, that a trademark
>> > isn't
>> > actually owned by the tm-holder. However, for all intents and purposes
they
>> > have the same control as an owner does, along with the additional duty to
>> > defend that trademark. Are you reversing those statements here?
>>
>>
>> I believe that issue does not really cross what I'm saying here, and what I
>> tried to
>> say earlier. And on what you've said immediately above I don't believe
I've
>> reversed
>> anything -- or please tell me where you think I have. :-)
>>
>> Bill Lovell
>
>I think we have all changed out positions on some areas in this process
>throughout the lifetime of these forums. I know I have changed my positions
>with regard to certain issues as time goes on and I see more discussion and
>evidence on certain matters.
>
>But in checking back I don't see this as an area where Bill has really changed
>his mind.
>
>
>----------------------------------
>William X. Walsh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>General Manager, DSo Internet Services
>Date: 29-Mar-99
>Time: 23:26:43
>----------------------------------
>"We don't accept any property claim to (registry information).
>Network Solutions has been exploiting this to drive their own business."
>--Michael Roberts, ICANN
>http://abcnews.go.com/sections/tech/DailyNews/netsol990326.html
