[ga] RE: [ALSC-Forum] Re: [GTLD Registries List] What is the accreditation status of registrars that made fake applications?

[Roeland Meyer <rmeyer@mhsc.com>]

Actually, what I decide to name computers, in my system, is nobody's
business but my own. I have always resisted the inclusion of the IP
fraternaty in these DNS issues. Especially, in the form of WIPO. 

Actually, if US PTO doesn't allow DNS names to be trademarked then the DNS
shouldn't allow trademarks to matter, in DNS policies. Otherwise, it's a bit
one-sided, don't you think?

BTW, there is a serious configuration issue with the ALSO list.

|> From: Malcolm Dean [mailto:malcolmdean@earthlink.net]
|> Sent: Monday, December 31, 2001 12:54 AM
|> 
|> TLDs are as relevant today as MS-DOS's naming convention. 
|> They are the
|> result of a database design, not a natural law.
|> 
|> From: "Daryl Tempesta" <lyradius@yahoo.com>
|> Sent: Sunday, December 30, 2001 11:07 PM
|> 
|> > > ICANN should stipulate
|> > > that trademarks only apply on COM NET and BIZ, and
|> > > reserve the rest,
|> > > particularly the INFO, for first come, first served.
|> >
|> > I have talked to Lawyers which represent Verisign AKA
|> > Network Solutions. I was told that buisness clients
|> > complain all the time about being advised to buy up
|> > EVERY domain in every TLD for every trademark they
|> > own.
|> >
|> > Bruces suggestion in a very good one in my oppinion
|> > because in some form it is inevitable.
|> >
|> > Here is why; I think that ICANN will either do  it
|> > volunterally or the US congress will step in - perhaps
|> > as the result of a high profile Supreme Court case.
|> > Consider these senarios.
|> >
|> > a) Some time in the near future, many more TLDs  are
|> > introduced, pressure from the atLarge and millions of
|> > individual domain owners will be successfull in
|> > lobbying ICANN for TM free TLDS
|> >
|> > Reason for non TM and TM requirements - Market
|> > saturation
|> >
|> > b)   Some time in the near future, many more TLDs  are
|> > introduced, Laws from congress passed due to the
|> > pressure of millions of individual domain owners will
|> > then be successfull.
|> >
|> > Reason for non TM and TM requirements - Legal
|> > intervention including new laws.
|> >
|> >
|> > Conclusion: it is inevitable that there will be both
|> > TM and non TM requirements in TLDs.
|> >
|> > ICANN build the framework now,
|> > while you have the choice how.

|> > --- Bruce Young <byoung651@attbi.com> wrote:
|> > > Jeff wrote:
|> > >
|> > > >It is poignantly and disgustingly clear that
|> > > >the ICANN staff either cannot or will not do
|> > > adequate oversight
|> > > >of it's rubber stamped "Registrars and Registries"
|> > > given the
|> > > >events of the past year or so that have been
|> > > reported here
|> > > >and on other forums.
|> > >
|> > > Ya think?! :)
|> > >
|> > > These guys are making this SO much harder tha it
|> > > needs to be.  Part of the
|> > > problem are these ugly "sunset" periods.  Why?  If
|> > > the point of new TLDs is
|> > > new addresses for peoplke that don't havethem, why
|> > > are we letting the same
|> > > old people buy up addresses before everyone else?
|> > > ICANN should stipulate
|> > > that trademarks only apply on COM NET and BIZ, and
|> > > reserve the rest,
|> > > particularly the INFO, for first come, first served.
--
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