Kerry and all,
Kerry Miller wrote:
> Jeff and all,
>
> > > 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 char ter 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.
>
> Think about it: either you accept that a *reasonable use of a TLD
> (.nom or any other) is to register a *unique name, and thus forget
> about the 'derivatives' -- or you hold that any conceivable variation
> *including any and all dotted pre- and post-pends,* on a TM filed in
> some land-locked registry, is covered by 'superior rights,' and thus
> toss the whole concept of the DNS as a convenient internet *usage
> (not operation, of course) out the window (not to mention the
> chilling effect it will have on *all other* forms of IP).
First of all we [INEGroup] along with the ORSC and the BWG,
amongst others argued against any linkage between a DN and
a TM name. This was undercut by the gTLD-MoU group along
with the TM lobby. As such the DOC was pressured to act
along with the USPTO. They did so, such pressures are also
being put on other countries in this area by the ICANN as well
as WIPO. I Expect in that the USG has taken a lead in responding
to the TM lobby, other countries, especially in the EU will respond
in kind. Thus we have solution of sorts that is not a good one,
but is workable.
>
>
> Which view of the world do you prefer, that of an 'intellectual' elite
> (business, in this case) whose ideas happen to have a hundred
> years of blundering precedence, or the rest-of-the-world who
> couldnt care less about 'trade'-marks for navigating public
> communication-space?
We [INEGroup] as well as myself would, as I stated above yet
again, would have preferred the latter. That avenue however
has effectively been closed off by the TM lobbyist groups.
>
>
> The longer the squabble about rights and names goes on, the more
> entrenched it makes WIPO's position as the court of last resort.
> Youve had a glimpse of how it sees its role; is that what you want?
This is not really the right or relevant question to ask, however as I,
and we [INEGRoup] have stated publicly before. The .nom gTLD
does not address this problem in any meaningful manner now, nor
would it have before the recent USPTO changes that the TM Lobby
pressured the USG and the DOC to implement. The only thing that
the .nom provides is an option that is not a very viable business
option for obvious reasons.
>
> Alternatively, in ICANN youve got all the scaffolding necessary to
> set up an international DB of *trade names and numbers which has
> at least the earmarks of openness; who are you waiting for to put
> this on the agenda? IBM? the BoD??
Kerry, there is already a international DB for trade names, in fact
there are several. So this point is really academic. So we are not
waiting on anyone. In this regard the ICANN is only about 2 years
behind the curve in this respect.
>
>
> kerry
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
