Re: Re[10]: [ga] Dave: "they are free"

["Christopher Ambler" <cambler-dompol@iodesign.com>]

> So if AOL Was willing to meet those terms, and make AOL a generic term
> for a descriptive namespace, then sure.  But by the above rules, they
> have abandoned any trademark rights or claims.
> 
> Trademark issues do not belong at the top level of the domain name
> system.
> 
> You can stop trying to twist it around, you will not succeed.  This is
> really a very simple concept.
> 
> End of story, Mr Ambler.

Not even close. You're saying that, in order to have a TLD, one must
relinquish all intellectual property claims? Sorry, that dog won't hunt.
That's just plain illegal. And for ICANN (or anyone in control of a
resource like the TLD space) to require that is a one-way ticket to
a messy fight. To require an AOL or IBM or MSN or ATT to
give up their trademark in order to have a TLD, even in the 95th
round of additions in the year 2043 is just ludicrous.

So I appreciate that this is your opinion, but the plain truth is that it
just doesn't track. If you can get ICANN to go on record that they
agree, I'll gladly concede the point and eat my hat. With ketchup.
But they had the ability to do that during the first application round,
and didn't. Indeed, some of the questions they asked indicated
quite clearly that they weren't prepared to do so. I'm sure my
hat will be tasty if you can prove otherwise.

In the interim, your opinion is noted, but fortunately doesn't reflect
reality.

Christopher

--
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