RE: [wg-b] Second Circuit on First Amendment Analysis of Domain Names

["Roeland M.J. Meyer" <rmeyer@mhsc.com>]

That pretty much says it. I might add that 1b, not having a clear
definition, is pretty much a show-stopper, IMHO. Many of the ills associated
with the enforcement of marks, famous of otherwise, fall from this lack of
unifying definition. The world, at large, can not even agree as to what a
Famous Mark is. This is to the point that I would ALMOST state that there is
no such critter. However, even I know better than that. But, the world's
legal community doesn't seem to agree and therein lays the problem.

What is absolutely clear is that only the soverign nations, via legislative
action, can define this  very short list and thus resolve the impass. Were
they, collectively, to pump out a list of famous, gobally protected marks, I
would back an exclusionary policy, based on such a list, today. Such a list
must be valid in EVERY jurisdiction in which MHSC operates. Any other course
of action opens the registry operator to excessive liabilities and legal
vulnerability.

My point and advisory to the WIPO crowd is that previous efforts have been
much too broad and general, to the point of impacting free-speech. Get a
little less greedy (more specific) and you might get something through the
various policy critters. Also, be a LOT more upfront with what you want to
accomplish and quit relying on PAC bushwacking tactics.

> From: owner-wg-b@dnso.org [mailto:owner-wg-b@dnso.org]On Behalf Of
> Hartman, Steve
> Sent: Thursday, February 03, 2000 6:44 AM
>
> On the issue of a blanket exclusion of [famous mark].[tld]s, wg-b appears
> split along the following lines:
>
> 1. Those opposed to such an exclusion believe that it (a) raises an
> appreciable first amendment problem, and/or (b) is unworkable because the
> concept of "famous mark" is not well-defined.
>
> 2. Those in favor of such an exclusion believe that there are no
> free speech
> or definitional problems, or at least that such problems are
> manageable and
> are far outweighed by the benefits of a famous mark exclusionary rule.
>
> Is this a fair summary?