Re: [wg-review] [DNDEF] short quizz 9,10

[Jefsey Morfin <jefsey@wanadoo.fr>]

Kent,
Sotiris responded you well on various points.

There is another point which is quite is concerning to us TM
holders (I own two of *real* web potential with two serious business
developments under way). It is that that the current lack of definition
of what is a DN makes us totally unprotected by the existing
"protection" WIPO's arsenal.

Let me explain: I invest on a TM because I understand that today
it is protected by law. If tomorow it is demonstrated that the
domain-names are not protectable under some circumstances or
simply may be challenged or the cost of the protection increases
a lot with a lot of TLDs around... I have lost my shirt.

Please believe that I know the DN problem for 23 years and that
I know my risks. Probably more than many others because I
have developped in the past international public services (for 42
countries) using the concept in different ways, because I have
alternative TLDs with a different concept (as per RFC 920 I have
"member names"), because I have a testbed "access engine"
service which uses "commercial names" and supports "addresses"
as per EDI standards, because I have proposed to the iCANN (see
the the iCANN archive on Yokohama preparation) a TLD using
"formated names", because I have a test augmented.root TLD
to use rules (and there is an ongoing RFC on a broader scope
making obsolete everything you know about DNs). Because I
was member of the CCITT Group III US Delegation under State
Department direction (now at the ITU/T) for the conception of the
X.121 addressing scheme, etc...

So please do not tell me that because I tell you that UDRP are
OK for anything in the dictionnary (what the WTO has just
acknowledged..) but not for DNs, please again do not come
and tell me I have no problem because you can mow your grass.

There is a problem. There is a huge problem for the world
economy and particularly for the USA due to the lack of
usage of ".usa" and the new accounting law making CocaCola
capitalizing its TM as 46% of its assets, while  Mr. Kohl's
daughter Karla may endanger in registing kohl-karla.com..

And this problem is a fake. It is just that some short minded
people have said "in some occasions, some perceptions of
the mnemonics used by the Bind progam look like a label
and then would relate to TM". The solution is to show that
the DNs belongs to a much wider semantic of mnemonic
designations according to several grammars, writing forms,
languages, cultures, technical reditions, international
disemination methods, etc... and to see seriously how they
may inserts themselves among common words, private
names, public names, forenames, familly names, nicknames,
trade mark, logos, geographical names, copyrights, etc...
and to probably to  develop an international agency to
federate all these problems. After all DNs and their like are
probably be the most fertile source of new words in the
history: already 25.000.000 and probably billions in a
near future.

If the WG-Review was really doing a proper job, it would
underline the need for the DNSO to become such an
agency and the need for proper international agreements
and treaties, budget, expertise... Your "grass" is worth
billions of dollars, millions of jobs, etc... don't forget it.

Don't forget either the response of YJ Park when I
introduced the point at the begining of this WG-Review.
She has perfecly understood what is at stake and why.

Jefsey







On 00:37 09/02/01, Kent Crispin said:
>On Fri, Feb 09, 2001 at 12:31:46AM +0000, Jefsey Morfin wrote:
> > Now, the problem is the UDRP can apply to many things (actually
> > to everything which is defined in the dictionnary) but not to the DNs.
> > Because DNs are not defined in the dirctionnary and not defined
> > ine the UDRP (while some other words are).
>
>You don't need to have a definition of the word "grass" in order to
>mow a lawn.  In fact, I'm quite sure that people of all linguistic
>persuasions can run a lawn mower, without having to worry even that they
>all have a common understanding of what the word "grass" means.  It is
>quite common, even in the law, for things to simply be defined through
>operation and familiarity.
>
>--
>Kent Crispin                               "Be good, and you will be
>kent@songbird.com                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain
>--
>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

--
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