Re: [ga] ICANN benefits

[Sandy Harris <sandy@storm.ca>]

"Tim Langdell, PhD" wrote:
> 
> Sandy
> 
> I heartily concur. Having been involved in numerous trade mark matters over
> the last 20 years, the aspects that remains relatively "sane" in
> international trade mark law are (a) it IS international -- that is, having
> a US trademark does not give you automatic rights in the UK, or Germany or
> Japan or etc, or vice versa, and (b) it protects the use of the same or very
> similar marks as long as they use is distinct and consumers will not get
> confused as to the true source and ownership of the goods or services
> associated with  the mark.
> 
> The key problem with applying trade mark law unthinkingly to the Internet as
> it stands at this moment in time, is that the vast majority of worldwide
> commerce is under the ".com" domain. And where you have only one TLD (.net
> has never gained the same favor) then of course you can only have one owner
> of any given name: your example using "Sun" is a good one.

I borrowed it from:
http://www.toad.com/gnu/dns-economist.html

Methinks Gilmore was right in that 1996 letter, especially:

" If roadrunner.com sells cartoons or Acme Anvils, it is in trouble; if it
" sells computers, Warner Brothers has no legitimate complaint. Network
" Solutions Incorporated (NSI) has shown itself poor at adjudicating such
" complaints. That is a job for the courts, which have procedural protections
" for the innocent as well as proper punishments for the guilty.

Arguably, the UDRP is a mistake, usurping a job that should be left to the
courts. Of course, there's also merit in the counter-argument that courts
are ineffective and horribly expensive because of the international nature
of the net, so we need a UDRP. 

Methinks rehashing that debate is pointless. We have it. How do we improve
it? 

Crocker: 
> > > As has been noted frequently, the UDRP needs enhancement.  But let's not
> > > attribute more precedent to it or ICANN than is valid.
> >
Me:
> > Specifically, it needs better protection for the domain holders who are
> > attacked using it.
--
This message was passed to you via the ga-full@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html