Thanks Dan for wiping out windsheilds again so we can see more
clearly.
I also agree with Chris Ambler's proposal that Well Know Name Holders
and Famous Name Holders should all have the same opportunity to
establish a TLD in their name, if they want to do so, and that if they
do, they have to meet all the same criteria that any other TLD
proposer has to meet.
One of those criteria has to be that there is no conflict over the
name as it passes out of its operational testing phases.
I still find that our Open Competitive SuperRoot needs to have a
staging subroot where new TLD registries must prove tha they are
responsible and capable of meeting established technical, operational,
policy, and administrative requirements, all of which must be
reflected in a contract to be signed by the registry and the Open
Competitive SuperRoot Trade Association.
The only exceptions will have to be made for the "legacy-TLDs" that
are already inbedded in the current IANA Root, as controlled by the
DCO NTIA, which we must agree to honor and include in our SuperRoot.
So, we need a drafting team to put together the definitive technical,
operational, policy, and administrative requirements, for publication,
open public discussion, and open public adoption. In a very important
sense, this draft document will be a critical step on our marketing
plan for our SuperRoot.
Do we have some volunteers?
This will be a heavy lifting exercise, so we should not have too many
participants with their hands in the keyboards to begin. Following
the first draft publication, open discussion will certainly be in
order, as it will also be in order for subsequence evolving versions.
There is a lot of text available in various places, especially in the
ORSC texts that have been mounted over the last many months. I
recall, but do not have handy some early discussions about
requirements for assuring that the root will be Open, Robust, Secure,
Comprehensive, Fair, Etc...
Cheers...\Stef
>From your message Thu, 01 Apr 1999 22:56:43 -0500:
}
}
}
}"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]
