[ga] Re: [ncdnhc-discuss] Board Positions on .ORG; Answers from V.Cerf-- full text

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Karl and all,

Karl Auerbach wrote:

> On Fri, 29 Mar 2002, James Love wrote:
>
> > Michael, regardless of what national law might be, there is still value in
> > having the registry explain if there is any policy regarding how the TLD
> > should be perceived, in terms of the UDRP rules regarding confusion.
>
> I was with you until the "in terms of the UDRP"...
>
> Let me begin with my standard into: There is a common misconception that
> the net is the same as the world wide web.  If one examines only the TCP
> port 80 based web offerings that one can reach via A records found via a
> DNS name one obtains a potentially very restrictive view of the resources
> and services that that domain name covers.

  Indeed true.  And this seems to be something that has slipped under the
UDRP door so to speak that as you know Karl, was discussed at length
before the than ICANN Interim BoD forced without stakeholder consensus,
the present UDRP.

>
>
> For example, a single name like "ctrc.org" (one of mine) can cover web
> sites, e-mail services, voice-over-ip mapping (either via things like H323
> gateways or ENUM), geographic coordinates, raw text, etc etc.
>
> Anyone who undertakes to review, much less audit, all the aspects of how a
> given domain name is used can be in for a rather long exploration.

  How true!

>
>
> (In many cases, even the operators of a computer don't know all the
> services it may be offering.  And sometimes bad folks have loaded new
> "services" onto a machine thus extending the services. ;-)

  >;)  Yes, Worldcom, AT&T, and Ford for instance!

>
>
> > If the TLD is designed to provide a space for non-commerical domain
> > holders (losely defined), and the registry say that use of a string on
> > the .org TLD for non commercial purposes was an appropriate and indeed
> > an expected use of the TLD, and therefore one should not automatically
> > enforce a commerical trademark in .org, this would be both helpful and
> > responsible.
>
> The commercial/non-commerial question can be very muddy.  For example,
> suppose a non-profit has links on its web page to commercial sites that
> pay for click-throughs?

  Yes.  This is a fairly common and increasingly growing practice that
the SEC and the IRS has made reference to but has great trouble by
themselves tracking well.  Hence as the SEC investigation division
has admitted publicly, rely increasingly on the aware public to
help them stay informed as to these sorts of activities.

>  Here in the US the IRS requires that tax exempt
> entity account for such revenues as if it were not tax exempt.  And the
> theatre company I work with - and which has a .org name - acts in many
> respects exactly like a for-profit.

  Much like ICANN eh?  >;)

>  For instance it spends hundreds of
> thousands of dollars every year promoting our shows.  And although we are
> involved in the performing arts and are a non-profit and tax exempt
> entity, we are still in the stream of commerce (broadly defined) and
> really do like the concept of protecting our company's name.
>
> But the deeper issue here is something that is akin to the idea of
> goodness or badness by association.  Here what is being suggested is that
> there may be some sort of legal or or UDRP-visible aura that might attach
> to a domain name simply by virtue of the company it keeps, i.e. the TLD it
> is in.
>
> That has always bothered me.  My own personal preference is that actual
> use is what must be objected to or what must be used as a defense.
>
> Over the last year or so I've been asking people whether we might improve
> things a bit, at least here in the US, if the US trademark law were
> amended to say something along the following lines:
>
> No holder of a registered mark would be placed in jeopardy of losing that
> mark because the holder did not obtain a domain name in any or all of the
> domain name registries available to it.

  I would rather see the reverse of this.  Ergo: No Domain name holder
or registrant shall be placed in jeopardy of losing that domain name
because the holder/registrant did not register that Domain Name
as a registered trademark regardless of the registry or TLD name space(s)
that registrant registered that Domain Name.

>
>
> (Of course, one would want more precise language.)

  Well of course...  >;)

>
>
> My feeling is that something like that might help mark owners feel a bit
> less compelled to register early and often as TLDs (and subdomains of
> ccTLDs) open up.

  Good point if the reverse is also true or if just the reverse as I provided
suggested.

  Point of Note:  As you know Karl INEGroup has for some time held
the position and still does that the current US TM law (Lanham act)
needs some modification and that we put forward such potential
changes forward some time ago now...

>
>
>                 --karl--
>
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss@icann-ncc.org
> http://www.icann-ncc.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 121k members/stakeholdes strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number:  972-244-3801 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208


--
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