Re: [wg-b] Voting Results and What We Do Next

[mark@bitshift.org]

On 26 October 1999, Milton Mueller <mueller@syr.edu> wrote:

> I think we need to recognize the fact that there is not 2/3 support
>for any famous mark protection via DNS administration (there is
>plenty of protection i n other ways). therefore, I find the questions
>below inappropriate.

While I am not sure where I stand on this issue, I do believe that 
the US Court of Appeals decision changes the dynamic quite a bit.  Now
we have a decision that not only says that the regirar is not liable,
but cannot be expected to police the Internet.  Furthermore, the decision
indicates (to me, at least) that the registrar clearly becomes liable if
such policing is attempted.

This bothers me quite a bit, because it implies that the famous mark
protection, if enacted, would have to be so strong as to exclude even the
hint of a possibility that the registrar may allow an ultimately 
infringing domain name to be registered.  This is far too strong a
protection in my mind, and forces me to stand firmly on the side of
no protection inherent in the registration.  To do otherwise is
to invite trouble if you're in the business of registering names.

If we decide against inserting famous mark protection into the domain
name system, then the registrars can maintain the status of a service
provider, and avoid liability.

-- 
Mark C. Langston
mark@bitshift.org
Systems Admin
San Jose, CA