Re: [wg-c] Retraction of previous proposal

["Mark C. Langston" <skritch@home.com>]

On 30 July 1999, "Rita M. Odin" <OdinR@arentfox.com> wrote:

>Milton Mueller wrote: >Domain names and TMs *can be* (as opposed to
>>"are") closely related when they are used in a commercial
>>context. You will of course concede that not all dom ain names are
>>used in a commercial context.
>
> But many are, so the problems still exist.  Further, even where the
>domain nam e in question is not used in a "commercial" context there
>may still be dilutio n/infringement, depending upon the facts of a
>particular case.

Ok, this has gone back and forth for a while now.  It seems that
nobody holding a TM wants *any* expansion at all, because if there is
expansion, the following assumptions will be true:

1)  People will intentionally register SLDs that directly infringe on
   TM/IP interests.

2)  It will cost far too much money to hunt down and litigate these
   infringements.

If you are already assuming that people WILL register infringing SLDs,
and you're going to insist on complaining about the cost of recovery
after the fact, then I suggest you spend the $70, or whatever the fee
is, per SLD and buy yourselves the ones that directly infringe.  

I don't mean to sound like I'm siding with the cybersquatters, because
I'm not.  However, it makes no sense whatsoever to sit there and
complain that someone else is going to force you to spend hundreds if
not thousands of dollars and personhours litigating ownership of an
SLD, when you not only had just as much chance as that person to
register it, but you knew about the new TLD before they did.  It may
have been a symapthetic plea with NSI because many TM/IP interests
didn't start taking the net seriously until their interests had
already been stomped on.

But right here, right now, you have the upper hand.  You know about a
potential to register the SLDs before the evil people in the world can
take them from you.  Use it.

I'll offer this up as a proposal, in lieu of my other one, with one
caveat: This proposal, like the last one, is somewhat off-the-cuff.
As such, there may be any of a number of legal or technical issues
that I didn't entirely think through, or wasn't aware of.  I therefore
reserve the right to trounce it at my own whim.

proposal:
Would it help alleviate matters is TM/IP interests were able to
get first crack at the SLDs in the new gTLDs, ***solely for the purpose
of registering SLDs that directly infringe upon existing TMs or IPs***?

I.e., X days before the new gTLD goes live, the TM/IP interests will
be allowed to purchase, at a normal price, all the SLDs they want that
are direct infringements.

E.g., Coca-Cola can buy cocacola.$FOO, coca-cola.$FOO, coke.$FOO,
coke-adds-life.$FOO, etc.  However, they can't go buying things like
redwave.$FOO and cocabean.$FOO ad nauseum.

Of course, the question is, who polices this?  Well, we could argue
that the TM/IP interests do, but we've seen where that goes.  We could
make the registry police it, but we've been down that path too.

How about we let the world police it?  A lot of people have adequate
BS detectors.  If someone sees a domain that the TM interests have
registered under this plan that's questionable at best, the person
just calls shenanigans on them.  The ADR is implemented, and chances
are it becomes expensive for the TM to battle for a domain it
shouldn't have gotten away with in the first place.  So it'd be in
their best interests to play it straight.

-- 
Mark C. Langston	     			Let your voice be heard:
mark@bitshift.org				     http://www.idno.org
Systems Admin					    http://www.icann.org
San Jose, CA					     http://www.dnso.org