Re: [wg-c] Retraction of previous proposal

["Kevin J. Connolly" <CONNOLLK@rspab.com>]

 Milton Mueller <mueller@syr.edu> 07/29/99 11:56PM wrote


>Robert F. Connelly wrote:

>> And just how do you think the Registrant plans to use cocacola.nom or .per?

>Not being clairvoyant, I wouldn't hazard a guess at anyone's intentions.

>If the site contains a picture of a 22-year old hippie in Amsterdam 
>known to her friends by the nickname "cocacola" and the site is 
>used primarily to publish her bad poetry, then I wouldn't be too 
>concerned.

You are not a trademark attorney.  I would be surprised to see any tolerance
of any dilution of a mark as powerful as CocaCola.  Or Golden Arches.  Or
Hidden Mickeys.  There are lots of marks that have NO business being used
in ANY context other than by (or with leave of) the fabulously successful enterprises 
that have used these marks to identify their goods and services and which have 
expended millions of dollars to develop those marks.  Does anyone on this list suppose 
that The CocaCola Group of Companies will not spend the $5MM or so it would take to 
squash ICANN like a bug if it poses a threat to their marks?  

> More seriously, I think your argument pertains more to the question of 
>whether ICANN should adopt WIPO's proposed "famous and well-known" 
>names exclusion policy, and not to the question of new gTLDs per se. 
>Do you have anything to add to the discussion of new TLDs?

Recognizing that my distinguished cousin from the land of the rising sun 
is indubitably asleep, I figured I'd tackle the question before I, too, go afk 
for the weekend.  These thoughts are, of course, my own alone.

Professor Mueller misses the mark when he attempts to characterize Mr. Connelly's 
remarks as extratopical.  The matter of protecting existing intellectual property rights 
will have to be dealt with before there will be a realistic possibility of expanding the
TLD name space.  The issues are linked.  Ignore the linkage and watch the proposal
for new gTLDs die.

Which would suit a number of peoples' agendas just fine.  Remarkably, none of the members
of this WG will admit to being opposed to the expansion of the domain name space.  I think it's
disingenuous of people to insist that they favor expansion of the domain name space while
fighting for conditions which make it inconceivable that the name space will in fact be expanded.

KJC

<usual yada>

**********************************************************************
The information contained in this electronic message is confidential
and is or may be protected by the attorney-client privilege, the work
product doctrine, joint defense privileges, trade secret protections,
and/or other applicable protections from disclosure.  If the reader of
this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified
that any use, dissemination, distribution or reproduction of this com-
munication is strictly prohibited.  If you have received this communi-
cation in error, please immediately notify us by calling our Help Desk
at 212-541-2000 ext.3314, or by e-mail to helpdesk@rspab.com
**********************************************************************