At 06:34 PM 6/26/99 -0400, you wrote:
>Tony,
>
>It seems odd to me that architecture would have the consumer--the would-be
>domain name holder--shop registrars for domain name dispute policies and
>whois data representation. After all, I'd imagine that the point of a
>dispute policy is to balance the interests of the holder and other later
>claimants both substantively and procedurally. Suppose in a world of
>varying policies a registrar offers the following simple one: we hand out
>names first-come first-served no matter what. The consumer who anticipates
>any question of her right to hold the sought-after name would go with that
>registrar, and a disputant would be left with no policy at all.
Which is the way it started out, before NSI's legal advisor whom I won't
bother to name spotted a way to start a gold rush and haul in the $$$$ --
it was "I register first-come first-served; if you've a problem I'll put you
two in touch, and then you and him fight; I'll hold your coats." Nothing
could have been more simple and equitable. As for "no policy at all,"
why should registrars have a "policy" about trademark rights? NSF,
the DOC (except for its Patent and Trademark Office which clearly
is not consulted), WIPO, registrars, ICANN, you net mavens and ISPs,
etc., don't know diddly squat about trademarks anyway and should never
have entered into that domain -- um -- area.
Bill Lovell
