Re: [wg-c] Schwimmer Post From Last Week

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

I didn't suggest Deloitte only be deloitte.cpa but its accounting division
might like to use it.  I would suggest that John Smith, an accountant,
might like to get johnsmith.cpa because johnsmith.com was already taken.
.cpa has the added advantage that someone is unlikely to register xerox.cpa
because it is a dumb thing to pirate. also, in the string dispute
situations, .cpa works to alleviate confusion.

If there can one million TLDs, why not experiment with one that will not
cause trouble?

.firm and .web will cause trouble.  .cpa will not cause trouble and some of
you can make some money off of it.  maybe not as much money as .firm for
now but it's a start.



At 10:20 AM 12/21/99 -0800, you wrote:
>
>I personally find TLDs that have a defined purpose to be a waste of time.
>
>First off, does anybody seriously believe that the law of trade and
>service marks would allow there to be TLDs in which a mark holder would be
>allowed, at no risk to his/her mark, to *not* inquire whether a given
>character string was being used to infringe?
>
>Secondly, defined TLDs fail to recognize the Protean characteristics of
>modern life.  Is Deloitte and Touch a .CPA or a .GMBH or a .CONSULTANT or
>what?  And should the next Yahoo be stuck in .ANON simply because the two
>students who were playing around started there?
>
>To my mind purposed TLD's is like purposed marks -- like saying that
>people who make household cleaning products must name their products
>things like "Tide Household" and "Comet Household".
>
>Third, who is going to be the policeman and who is going to be the
>judge/jury?  We've seen the failure of policing even something as simple
>as .edu.  (And are universities that sell patent rights really solely
>.edu?)
>
>		--karl--
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @