"Roeland M.J. Meyer" wrote:
>
> At 08:14 PM 4/1/99 -0500, Dan Steinberg wrote:
> >Notsofast...
> >
> >Before we (or anyone else) can cede famous names, we need an
> >appropriate international definition of 'famous names'. Right now
> >most of the world uses 'well known marks' in the trademark arena, and
> >that's as good as it gets. Remember, that's just the trademark
> >arena. Outside of trademark law, I defy anyone to come up with an
> >internationally acceptable definition of 'famous names' (other than "I
> >know one when I see one").
>
> I was thinking similarly. How about we make them present proof of
> trademark, or provide statements affirming their common-law mark.
Um, Roeland...
Trademark in which country?
The whole point I was trying to make is that we can't apply these
rules across national boundaries. Plenty of entities have valid
trademarks on the same character string in the same country. Now take
it across national boundaries. This just doesn't scale.
>
> I've always appreciated NSI's delicate position, although their policy sux
> eggs.
>
> >Sorry to be a wet blanket, but just because I think .att is associated
> >with a certain firm doesn't mean everyone in the world does (actually
> >I would first think of .at&t before I thought of .att but that's
> >another story).
> >
> >The point being that it will 'fairly' difficult to make such
> >allocations. why should ford motor company get .ford instead of the
> >ford agency? Give male teens the choice between supermodels and super
> >trucks, I wouldnt want to bet on the outcome. And I am sure that
> >somewhere in the world. the alpha string 'ibm' is strongly associated
> >with something other than a certain company with headquarters in the
> >state of New York. Etc. etc.
>
> >I like Christopher Ambler's suggestion. Nothing is automatic. If
> >someone who happens to have a US Famous Mark wants to run a TLD, it is
> >possible but not guaranteed. There still has to be a process.
>
> Agreed, with a modification. They should sign a hold-harmless. Actually,
> this brings up another point related to the SLA and that is the contract
> binding the TLD owner and the organization. Granted, we need to agree on
> the service levels first, but they should be formalized shortly thereafter.
>
> I have boiler-plate, that I used for the MHSC Terms Of Service
> <http://www.mhsc.com/legal.dox/TOS_txt.html>, but I am sure Dan has better,
> or can better modify it for ORSC use.<grin> (BTW, I stole the plate from
> AOL). Since ORSC is a DE corp, it would be prudent to claim DE jurisdiction.
And the law of which nation should apply?????
Sorry, doesn't scale either.
There's a few dozen problems to solve before we (or anyone else) gets
to defining SLAs.
--
Dan Steinberg
SYNTHESIS:Law & Technology
35, du Ravin
Box 532, RR1 phone: (613) 794-5356
Chelsea, Quebec fax: (819) 827-4398
J0X 1N0 e-mail:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
