Re: [ga] Jus Primae Noctis [Was: An interesting dissent to sunrise provisions]

["Bret A. Fausett" <baf@fausett.com>]

At 12:03 AM 04/18/2000 +0200, you wrote:
>The reality is, IMHO, that that IPC feels able to block any opening of
>new gTLDs unless the conditions are what they want.
>I, personally, had some doubts about the UDRP, but have taken the
>position that the provisions were globally reasonably fair, and that a
>Uniform, worldwide procedure would have been better than to be subject
>to "local" laws. But also, I was sure that this would have settled the
>problem of Trademarks for good.

Roberto --

I suspect that a lot of those who supported the UDRP did so not because 
they cared one whit about domain name-trademark conflicts, but because they 
thought that it was a necessary precondition for implementation of new 
gTLDs. But now that we have a new UDRP and a powerful new U.S. law to 
combat Cybersquatting, we're still asked to pay the "trademark tax" on all 
new gTLDs.

Now's the time to show that we've done enough on the trademark problem and 
that we need to move on to other work. I believe that a referendum in the 
GA on the WG-B report would reveal that the only consensus about the 
"trademark tax" is that it should not be paid.

             -- Bret


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