Re: [wg-review] [DNDEF]

[Sotiropoulos <sotiris@hermesnetwork.com>]

1/19/01 10:05:39 AM, "Philip Sheppard" <philip.sheppard@aim.be> wrote:

>   Constructing rules for IP protection is fraught with difficulty. The
>   objective I would suggest is to create a DNS with low consumer 
confusion
>   without allowing unfair capture of domain names by trademark owners.

Perhaps then you would also consider a moratorium on all current disputes 
relating to names corresponding to non-coined words, in cases where no 
adequate or substantial bad faith evidence is available or presented?

>   Members of this group have proposed identical name protection only
>   'unitedcomputers.com' but not parts or sub-strings. I agree that a name
>   that splits into generics 'united" and 'computers' and losses contact with
>   is original form should not have protection.
>    
>
>   But to then say no substrings is a little too purist and this will be
>   subverted by those who wish to be fraudulent or confusing.

Which is why Jon Postel was right when he said that it should never have 
happened from the start.  TV is for entertainment, the Internet is for 
Information.  One is not, and should not try to be, or become the other.  This 
is a mistake.
    
>   If coke.com and cokelite.com would get protection, why not 
drinkcoke.com
>   and  litecoke.com,
>
>   If pampers.com why not babypampers.com?
>   If sony.com why not musicatsony.com?

Again, bad starts usually end up in confusion.
    
>   Surely what is important is the intent of the domain name holder. Are they
>   in good faith or bad faith? Do they seek fair DNS presence (that may be
>
>   coincidental to the names of others) or do they seek to pretend to be 
what
>   they are not?

How do you adequately prove intent? as a clever baiting email etc,..?  What 
if intent changes over time? 

This issue needs be addressed in great detail.  Simple conflation is what 
caused the mess.  Perhaps an end to it should be declared.  I mean, 
whoever got what they got, got it while the getting was good.  Lines have to 
be drawn out.  The new territories must be consolidated and organized.  I 
think Postel understood that if left to itself, the Web would eventually 
organize and structure itself.  

In order to minimize the already great damage, all haste must be made in 
addressing this most central issue.



Sotiris Sotiropoulos
          Hermes Network, Inc. 


--
This message was passed to you via the wg-review@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe wg-review" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html