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

["Martin B. Schwimmer" <martys@interport.net>]

>
>>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.
>
>
>Could you please run through your line of reasoning with the statement
>above again that ".FAME is not such a TLD."  

Becuase it has been defined as a suffix for AUFMs which don't need context,
it is not a TLD suffix which adds context.  In XEROX.FAME, .FAME is
duplicative.  IN DELTA.TRAVEL or DELTA.HEALTH, .TRAVEL or .HEALTH helps you
interpret "which" Delta in a way which is unnecessary for XEROX.

 Providing context with which
>to interpret the SLD hasn't worked for .COM, NET and ORG and even .EDU,
>which is identified  solely for four-year degree-granting institutions but
>is now under increasing pressure from other types of educational
>structures.

That is a function of NSI electing not to enforce restrictions in any way.
Even without enforcement, people still make assumptions that a .org is a
non-commercial usage.

p.s. why is there little or no piracy in .edu?



  The problem with maintaining the context of the TLD is how to
>draw the line, how to police the requirement.  Should appropriateness be
>based solely on the registrant's assertion?  

A determination of appropriateness would be based on the registrant's use
of the name.


Should registrars be asked to
>check some sort of credentials of every name applicant?

No, that's not feasible.  But they should require an assertion.

>
>What would work for .FAME is that there would be a clear gatekeeper to
>entry, actually two, the first being a trademark registration and the
>second being a certification that the name is famous.  There would thus be
>no cyberpiracy in .FAME,  and existing legal remedies could deal with any
>true (i.e. contextual) infringement of the use of the mark elsewhere.
>Since the purpose of a mark is to prevent confusion by the consumer as to
>the source of goods and services, .FAME would provide part of that
>identification process. 

The purpose of a mark is not to prevent confuision, the purpose of a mark
is to identify a source.  The purpose of enforcement is to prevent
confusion. .FAME is not an enforcement tool.  Mueller acknowledged that the
existence of xerox.fame will have no effect on whether a third party would
register xerox.firm.

 XEROX.COM identifies XEROX as a source, creating an additional TLD for the
same goods and services offered at XEROX.COM adds nothing and in fact
creates more confusion, because it suggests that the owner of acme.com is
not necessarily the owner of acme.fame.

 I would think holders of famous marks would
>welcome this solution for a single source recognition, instead of having to
>register the name in 100 or more TLDs.

The famous trademark creates single source recognition, whatever that is.
Trademark owners don't want to register necessarily in 100 or more TLDs -
they don't want third parties to register their marks in TLDs if those TLDs
are unrestricted.  Hence the exclusion.

  From a time management perspective,
>you have on the one hand the famous mark holder who is identified as such
>and gets the name in .FAME.  If, on the other hand, you have worldwide
>exclusion in all gTLDs for famous marks, then every registrant has to
>maintain a running list of those marks and every time an applicant wants to
>register any of those names,  the registrar has to screen the list and
>return a message to the applicant saying hands off this name.  IMHO,
>registrars should not have the responsibility to police marks for trademark
>owners, famous or otherwise.  If they are forced to do so, then they are
>moved into a potential contributory liability situation, instead of
>providing mere pass through services.

XEROX is or is not on a list.  The regsitrar doesn't need to know what is
or is not on the list.  Software filters provided to the registrar would
maintain the list.  Such filetrs exist, NSI uses them (although they don't
want to anymore).

The feasibilty of filters is a reasonable topic.  The creation of a TLD
trademark owners don't want which won't have piracy, while 100 TLDs will
have piracy is a non-starter.




@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @