Re: [wg-b] How would .fame work?

[martys@interport.net]

What is Milton right about precisely?

The part about an administrative finding of fame being useful in a legal
proceeding is correct, but an administrative finding of fame is part of the
WIPO proposal.

Other than that, I suppose you will agree that the existence of a .fame
will have no effect whatsoever on whether there is piracy in an
unrestricted commercial TLD such as .firm.  Mueller acknoweldged that by
saying that the deterrents were UDRP and cyberpiracy legislation (although
the cyberpiracy bill won't apply to registrants over whom US courts don't
have personal jurisdiction.

Your hypo which assukes that there will ever be a .warriors TLD is absurd,
and your assumption that Amazon.com would care about amazon.warriors is
equally absurd, but jsut to go along with the joke, you have just
illustrated the same point that Ms. Rony did with her .law hypo - if all
new TLDs had suffixes which provided context with which to interpret the
SLD, such as a .art, .fan, .nom, or even a .sux, then cyberpiracy would be
reduced and just as importantly, "string disputes" would be reduced as
well.  .fame is not such a TLD.


>At 17:13 10.12.99 -0500, Milton Mueller wrote:
>
>[Milton's got it right, so I'm not commenting]
>
>> > so third parties would never register amazon.xxx to sell books?
>>
>>They might. (btw, Amazon sells a lot more than books.) But there are simple
>>and effective remedies if they do.
>
>what will happen is that someone registers amazon.warriors, and
>Amazon(.com) comes out in full fighting gear saying "we're famous, and
>here's our amazon.fame domain registration to prove it".
>
>We need a system where a human decides, not a mechanism, in such cases.
>
>                      Harald
>
>--
>Harald Tveit Alvestrand, EDB Maxware, Norway
>Harald.Alvestrand@edb.maxware.no