Re: [ifwp] Re: Perminant DOmain Names? Was:Re: Who is on the list

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Jean and all,

Jean-Christophe Praud wrote:

> Jeff Williams wrote:
> >
> > Joop and all,
> >
> >   All interesting developments in formations of model ideas.  We have one
> > as well that takes into account trademark concerns as well.
> >
> >   For instance IBM has IBM.com and IBM.net tiled a trademarks as well
> > as Domain names.  It is likely that whatever new gTLD's are added
> > to the DNS root IBM will no doubt trademark domain names in those
> > name spaces as well.  So as a result, IBM owns those trademarks and really
> > as a consequence of property law and intellectual property law IBM also
> > permanently owns those Domain manes as well.
> >
>
> Why create new TLDs if they must contain the same SLDs ?

  Well they don't necessarily have to contain the same SLD's.  My use in
theexample of "IBM" for instance, may not have been a good one, but is
still a valid one as to our suggestion anyway.  I don't have any idea as
a matter of fact weather IBM for instance has any investment in wine, but
I would imagine that it does.

  So Jean, is you point here that some TLD's should be specialized as to what
kinds of companies or organizations that can legitimately register SLD's?  Which

to us anyway begs the question should some TLD's be protected as to what
or whom may register SLD's with respect to their primary use purpose may be?

>
>
> New TLDs are necessary because the current ones are too generic.
> Sure, IBM should own ibm.* in computer-related TLDs (.web, .comp,
> .bin, etc.)
>
> But ibm.* should remain available in other TLDs.

  Agreed completely.  My example was not a good one possibly.  Soyou are saying
there should be categories fro TLD's than?  >;)

>
>
> For instance, if a wine-related company called IBM existed, it
> could register ibm.wine, but Big Blue could not, as long as it
> doesn't make wine related business...

 Understood.  I was making the case for "Ownership" of a Domain Namehowever.  So
my point was IBM should be able to OWN IBM.COM and
IBM.NET.  This does not mean they should own a SLD necessarily in
another TLD name space.

>
>
> --
> Jean-Christophe Praud - Ludexpress  http://www.ludexpress.com
> http://www.nicwine.net    http://www.eursc.net     3:213 WINE
> Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu n'gah Bill R'lyeh Wgah'nagl fhtagn
>
> __________________________________________________
> To receive the digest version instead, send a
> blank email to ifwp-digest@lists.interactivehq.org
>
> To SUBSCRIBE forward this message to:
> subscribe-IFWP@lists.interactivehq.org
>
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, forward this message to:
> unsubscribe-ifwp@lists.interactivehq.org
>
> Problems/suggestions regarding this list? Email andy@interactivehq.org.
> ___END____________________________________________

 Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number:  972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208