Re: [ga] Re: WLS Conference Call

["todd glassey" <todd.glassey@worldnet.att.net>]

Wait List Services are probably inherently illegal at some level (or should
be)  since there is no way that a DNS entry alone conveys the IP rights
around a TM or SM. This is a real sore point since I as an individual may
let a registration lapse on a marque that I already own and one that is
still in use in the public eye, either in written or other public form. The
problem is that once IP herein is issued, Unless someone is willing to
negotiate my rights against this IP, I still own it.

This WLS proposal as I see it essentially breaks trademark law, but I could
be mistaken.

The problem is that several of the proposals I have seen infer that I could
register to snatch a domain name and when the registrar released it, it
would become available. there is no accounting for the original registrant,
and so this is a method to force the availability of more domains such that
their businesses can survive at the original IP owners expense.

The gating issue below this all  is the simple question - "Is a Domain Name
the same thing a Trademark?" and if so then it is protected by trademark
law... And that means that there is no difference in a Trademark whether it
is used on the Internet or in print elsewhere. And just because I choose to
let a domain name lapse does not mean that I still do not actively own and
protect my marques.

If you want to address the issues then address those that register thousands
of domains and then offer them for sale.  The only thing that will make
there be more names available is to outlaw list brokers and make the
relationship between the DNS process and the End User one of a 1:1 nature.
And to clean up the release process so that there are no IP issues lingering
in the operational policy of the Internet.

The problem is that this MUST conform to each of the country's IP laws that
this Internet terminates within and that's not possible with these uniform
rules since the laws change from place to place...

Todd

----- Original Message -----
From: "James Love" <james.love@cptech.org>
To: <DannyYounger@cs.com>; <ga@dnso.org>
Cc: "Manon Ress" <mress@essential.org>
Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2002 3:28 PM
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: WLS Conference Call


> There is an addition issue for us.  Verisign is earning monopoly rents
from
> domain owners now. If this is more bucks for Verisign, it should be used
to
> lower the registry fees, or do something else that benefits the doamin
> owners, if it goes forward.
>
> Jamie
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <DannyYounger@cs.com>
> To: <ga@dnso.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2002 5:35 PM
> Subject: [ga] Re: WLS Conference Call
>
>
> : The remit of the Names Council and its task forces is to manage the
> consensus
> : process as it pertains to policy matters regarding domain names.
> : Consequently, one should begin by asking:  What are the policy issues
> : implicated by the WLS proposal?
> :
> : On today's call, it was argued that the WLS proposal would favor those
> that
> : have engaged in the hoarding of domain names.  While this may be true,
we
> : currently have no policy regarding domain name hoarding, and as such no
> : current policies are implicated by this proposal.
> :
> : It has also been argued that the WLS proposal could impact those
> businesses
> : that now provide Wait-List services.  As a matter of policy, ICANN has
> : already demonstrated that it has the right under certain conditions to
> damage
> : the business of others (and I'm sure that Leah Gallegos can confirm this
> : fact), and the implementation of WLS would not be a departure from this
> : policy.  Again, no change in policy is contemplated by the WLS.
> :
> : Dan Steinberg has argued that there are no new IP policy issues at
stake,
> and
> : I currently find his arguments to be reasonable.
> :
> : It is not our job to give a thumbs-up or thumbs-down on the "merits" of
> the
> : WLS proposal, but rather to evaluate whether any current policies are
> : affected by the proposal.  I would appreciate it someone could detail
the
> : current ICANN policies that are called into question by the WLS
proposal,
> so
> : that we can stay within the scope of our limited mission.
> : --
> : 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
> :
> :
>
>
> --
> 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
>

--
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