Re[4]: [wg-c] is this really the work we have before us?

["William X. Walsh" <william@dso.net>]

Sunday, August 22, 1999, 11:54:07 PM, Roeland M.J. Meyer <rmeyer@mhsc.com> wrote:

> John,
> Your argument flies in the face of reason and is definitely not
> supported in existing US trademark law. In case you haven't noticed,
> ICANN is subject to US law, first and foremost, because it exists on US
> soil and under US corporate law.

> A trademark can certainly be used for a chartered TLD. Moreover, there
> is no way a TM holder would sign such a contract (that can force a US
> trademark holder to relinquish their IP rights), because it would
> supercede the US PTO. That organization is the final authority,
> certainly, not a non-profit, private, California corporation. Those IP
> rights are issued by a government and supported by the courts, as well
> as, international treaties. Simply signing such an agreement can cost
> the trademark holder their IP rights (US requirement to defend the TLD).
> They wont do it. They woud rather use a root-registry that didn't
> require such an onerous clause.

I suspect this issue will end up being a non-starter.  The simple fact
is that there are too many concerns with regard to TLDs to treat them
like trademarks.  I think the necessary contract to enter the roots
will have to include a clause that waives any and all IP rights to the
TLD and the associated data (whois, zone files, etc) and that the
rights to those items revert to ICANN when/if the registry is tendered
for reassignment.

I really see no other way to make it work.  If the registry doesn't
like it, then they don't want to be in the root.

It's a fair provision.

--
William X. Walsh - DSo Internet Services
Email: william@dso.net  Fax:(209) 671-7934
Editor of http://www.dnspolicy.com/

(IDNO MEMBER)
Support the Cyberspace Association, the 
constituency of Individual Domain Name Owners 
http://www.idno.org