John and all,
John B. Reynolds wrote:
> A.M. Rutkowski wrote:
> >At 02:19 PM 5/7/99 , John B. Reynolds wrote:
> >
> >
> > The reasons for this discrepancy are obvious to anyone with any working
> > knowledge of the Internet. They are twofold:
> >
> >do say. :-)
>
> It is, of course, more probable that you are intentionally raising 'issues'
> that you know to be spurious in order to muddy the debate than that you
> genuinely don't understand the difference between SLDs and lower level
> names.
I would not necessarily take this precarious view. Such an issue is both
real and likely to occur, all be it with possibly a different "String of
Characters"
as a potential DN. Such a statement that you make here John is seemingly
an unsuccessful attempt to belittle this concern. But than again this has
been you practice in the past as I am sure many will recognize.
>
>
> >
> > 1) Trademark enforcement against DNS names at levels below those
> assigned
> > by TLD registries, or against directory names used within Web sites, is a
> > practical impossibility. The vast majority of names at these levels are
> > assigned for private use by the holders of the parent domain name, not by
> > publicly accessible registries.
> >
> >Mark Lottor seems to have had no problem compiling them for the
> >past 15 years. Maybe he doesn't realize this is a practical impossibility.
>
> You're changing the subject again. Imposing trademark policies upon
> millions of SLD holders for their lower level identifiers is a fundamentally
> different task than compiling statistics. Besides, if I were to create the
> name porsche.reynolds.nu, it would not show up in the Network Wizards survey
> unless I were to also revise the in-addr.arpa record for the IP address to
> which it pointed. Since there is not a one-to-one relationship between
> domain names and IP addresses, many active DNS names are missed by Mr.
> Lottor's survey.
This is both misleading conclusion and not strictly based on fact, as you
well know John. besides we have been here before as well. You were WRONG
than and you are still WRONG now.
>
>
> >Private use? If they are being used on the Internet, it would
> >appear by definition the use is public. Maybe you could explain
> >this private-public distinction. That's a new one.
>
> "Private" meaning that all names within the zones in question are managed by
> a single entity for its own purposes.
Again this is not necessarily the case. There are many, too many to mention
that are NOT managed by a single entity, and should not be.
> For example, if one encounters the
> domain name boxster.porsche.com, one can safely presume that it belongs to
> the holder of porsche.com.
Again not necessarily the case either, and possibly it should not be the case
either as it is unique within itself as a identifier.
> A similar presumption in the case of porsche.com
> would not be true: it belongs to Porsche, not ICANN or NSI.
Finally a factually correct statement. Amazing!
>
>
> > 2) In part because of point 1, consumers' beliefs about the ownership of
> > Web sites and e-mail addresses are typically based on the second-level
> > domain names (or third-level for registries that do not directly delegate
> > SLDs), not domain names at lower levels or directory names. The
> likelihood
> > of consumer confusion based on these names is consequently too small to
> > concern most trademark holders.
> >
> >So the test is "the liklihood of consumer confusion," and there
> >is no issue with, for example, porsche.aol.com?
>
> Precisely. Most consumers would correctly conclude that porsche.aol.com
> belongs to AOL, not Porsche.
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
