Re: [ga-tm] Domain Name Owners' Bill of Rights

[Eric Dierker <eric@hi-tek.com>]

With all due intent on cooperation;  There is a debate maxim that states; He
who defines the issue wins.
By placing this discussion within the Registry(Verisgn) Registrar's grasp you
take away the most important reason for putting it in place as a check against
the overbaring TM lobby.  Registrars are specifically exempt from liability in
TM claims and maintain this by avoiding action with regard to such matters, an
interesting change will take place with the new "sunrise crapola", but for now
their involvment with a bill of rights will change the landscape.  A Bill of
Rights is specifically a DH versus a TMH issue.

I must say that I am not completely confident this is the case but it should be
addressed before just being assumed one way or the other.

IMHO,

"Co-Chair, DNSO GA" wrote:

> The proposed agenda of [ga-sys] includes a section on "Registry-Registrar
> Operations" in which the most relevant issue is a domain name holder's
> "Charter" or "Bill of Rights".  As the Registrar constituency is also
> debating the topic, it is scheduled for inclusion in the General Assembly
> agenda for Stockholm.
>
> This issue was first raised on the [ga] list then accidentally taken to the
> [ga-tm] list.  I would ask that this topic please be debated in [ga-sys].
>
> For ease of reference I have shown a few relevant postings here:
> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga-sys/Arc00/msg00003.html
>
> Regards
> Patrick Corliss
> Co-Chair, GA
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the ga-tm@dnso.org list.
> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga-tm" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

--
This message was passed to you via the ga-tm@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-tm" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html