Kevin and all, Kevin J. Connolly wrote: > Let's clarify something for the sake of those who have nothing better to do . . . Short reply to this comment. There is NOTHING more important than one protecting their business and their customers, not to mention their stock holders. Hence I find this comment a bit off base and somewhat condescending. > > > When I suggest that the growth of the Internet is not helped by making the trademark >community fight to preserve intellectual property rights, I am not referring to the >ongoing activities of all trademark owners to uphold their trademarks. That's a >given. > > I'm talking about the continuing effort by some elements in this process to create a >regime in which the possession of intellectual property rights, no matter how strong, >counts for nothing in a domain name dispute. There's been a great deal of straw man >argumentation at work here. So are you saying that IP rights of a DN holder account for nothing? If so, than please explain that contention and how you arrived at it. > > > Neither I, nor any other partisan of the gtld-mou, believes that the family name >"Disney" or "MacDonald" should be kept off the 'net because of a clash with a >trademark. That's why the gtld-mou called for the creation of the .nom top level >domain, and why, for a time, we were preparing a charter for that domain that would >have enabled the governance system to keep the .nom domain open for that purpose. And the argument of using .NOM as a solution is in itself a straw man as well, all be it a different breed of one. As such, it does not provide for a reasonable solution within a specific Name Space. IF I have registered Macdonnalds.com and all of its potential derivatives or any one of it's derivatives than I have superior rights to that TM and it's use on the internet as a DN in any of the name spaces in which I have registered an appropriate TM or have been granted a TM. > I believe that .per has a comparable purpose and a charter which is already in >place. The .nom charter process has been backburnered thanks to the US Government >Green and White papers' indefinite postponement of the enlargement of the domain name >space, and probably killed by the death of the Policy Advisory Body. The gTLD-MoU self distructed on it's own lack of merit, this would include CORE/PAB/POC as well... > > > The political process thus far has been driven by at least three separate processes: > NSI's recognition that its bottom line will not be helped by competition; the >raucous yammering of people who want to "me too" onto the new domain bandwagon; and >the trademark community, which is downright frightened at the emergence of hundreds >of new top level domains lacking in a coherent policy for harmonizing conflicts >between trademark space and domain name space. FIrst, the tone of this comment is very condescending and, frankly nonproductive in that sense. Second, the internet community wants CHOICE's, hence the need is perceived to be self evident that new gTLD's be established. Policies for those new gTLD's also needed to be flexible between them as the marketing element would dictate. > > > While there are many who believe that NSI's clout (particularly its incestuous >relationship with the Intelligence Community) has been of decisive weight in the >domain name wars to date, my own perception is that the trademark community has >played a very significant role in slowing things down as well. The expansion of the >tld namespace is perceived as a bad thing. Are you saying that the TM community wishes to see NO NEW TLD's? If so, I agree. However that is changing, as is evident with the USPTO's new classifications have shown. > > The fact that there are also oodles of "cc" tlds has not taken hold among users (who >still think that dns should have semantic content) or trademark holders. > > Come to think of it, when was the last time that a search engine session you ran >returned _any_ hits outside of com/net/org? Today as a matter of fact. > If you're like most users, you've never had a search return hits outside of the >gTLDs. This to is also changing and will rapidly change as well or those major search engine companies will be left in the cold. > I _occasionally_ get hits in the UK and Australia, but it's not often. The >perception, then, is that search engines will continue to turn up pages in the gTLDs, >and the ccTLDs don't count for much in the world-wide-web-as-mass-medium. By in large this is true, however it is rapidly changing... > > > Kevin J. Connolly > > =========================== > > >>> "William X. Walsh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 04/07/99 04:58PM >>> > Isn't that the explicit legal OBLIGATION they have in exchange for > their trademark? > > On Wed, 7 Apr 1999 10:37:14 -0400, you wrote: > > >Dear Readers: > > > >While I am not a fan of NSI's domain name policy, it's important to maintain >perspective. > > > >Every domain name registry has to have some sort of policy in place that answers >the question how it will act when confronted with a domain name dispute. In the >absence of an articulated policy, there are a number of exposures to liability and/or >litigation that are economically unjustified. These determinations are not intended >to be conclusive. The policy serves only to make uniform (or, in practice, to >attempt to reduce the caprices of individual judgment) as to how the registry will >respond when a person other than the registrant claims to have the legal right to >possession of the domain name. > > > >The "absence" of a policy is simply a different policy: absolute first come, first >served, and sue us if you don't like it. Not a good outcome. Whether we like it or >not, the growth of the World Wide Web is driving the development of the Internet, and >the WWW is driven by electronic commerce. Commerce, in turn, has been inexorably >linked to trade names for centuries. That's not going to stop now. The continued >prosperity of the Internet will not be helped by forcing the world trademark >community to fight for the protection of their intellectual property. > > > >Kevin J. Connolly > > > >>>> David Schutt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 04/07/99 10:00AM >>> > >Not adequate in the least. NSI has no business whatsoever making the > >determination that a tm registration in and of itself is sufficient to take > >action against a domain name. > > > >D Schutt > > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: Owner-Domain-Policy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On > >Behalf Of William X. Walsh > >Sent: Wednesday, April 07, 1999 2:28 AM > >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >Subject: Re: NSI has scrapped its domain name trademark policy? > > > > > >On Wed, 7 Apr 1999 00:06:16 -0700, you wrote: > > > >>Hello Chuck, > >> > >>This is certainly a hefty improvement. My only comment, at this time, is > >"why did it take y'all so long?" It should have been done *years* ago. > >However, at the moment, this looks pretty adequate and eliminates most of my > >present complaints about NSI. > >> > > > >Um, what is an improvement, Roland? > > > >The policy is the same, just not linked from the main site. > > > >This is not adequate at all. > > > > > >-- > >William X. Walsh [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >General Manager, DSo Internet Services > > > > > >Fledgling Free Email Service comes under > >Trademark attack http://www.intermail.net > > > > > >-- > >DOMAIN-POLICY administrivia should be sent to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >To unsubscribe send a message with only one line "SIGNOFF DOMAIN-POLICY" > >For more help regarding Listserv commands send the one line "HELP" > > > > > >-- > >DOMAIN-POLICY administrivia should be sent to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >To unsubscribe send a message with only one line "SIGNOFF DOMAIN-POLICY" > >For more help regarding Listserv commands send the one line "HELP" > > > > > >********************************************************************** > >The information contained in this electronic message is confidential > >and is or may be protected by the attorney-client privilege, the work > >product doctrine, joint defense privileges, trade secret protections, > >and/or other applicable protections from disclosure. If the reader of > >this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified > >that any use, dissemination, distribution or reproduction of this com- > >munication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communi- > >cation in error, please immediately notify us by calling our Help Desk > >at 212-541-2000 ext.3314, or by e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >********************************************************************** > > -- > William X. Walsh [EMAIL PROTECTED] > General Manager, DSo Internet Services > > Fledgling Free Email Service comes under > Trademark attack http://www.intermail.net > > 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
