Re[2]: [ga] TLD feedback from a client

[Andy Gardner <andy@navigator.co.nz>]

At 10:02 am +0200 10/4/00, Jefsey Morfin wrote:
>Again (I think I am the old Caton): this calls for a DN definition
>in the UDRP document. You cannot rule about something you
>do not know. TM lobby says the DN is a label, a label is what
>is a TM, hence the DN is TM like and TM rules apply (which is
>quite specious - this way you prove a women to be a man -
>allthemore than they havd to create new rules for the TLD
>specifics). I say the DN is a "road sign": it only tells where is a
>site the users accept or want to call with that name: standard
>rules apply to the site and to the users.
>Jefsey

NSI has already discovered the truth about domain names.

They don't sell domain names, they sell "web addresses".

I don't see Amazon running around suing book retailers that run their
business on "Amazon Blvd", or in the town of Amazon, Arkansas.

We need the US supreme court to rule that a domain name is really an
address. That'll stop all this UDRP crap in its tracks.

-- 
Andrew P. Gardner
barcelona.com stolen, stmoritz.com stays. What's uniform about the UDRP?
We could ask ICANN to send WIPO a clue, but do they have any to spare?
Get active: http://www.domain-owners.org http://www.tldlobby.com
--
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