At 06:46 AM 2/10/99 +00-04, Kerry Miller wrote:
>Roeland wrote:
>
>> The first question I have is whether we want to restrict this to the
>> IFWP
>> list, or one of the other lists? IMHO, the IFWP list seems to be neutral
>> ground. Posting to all four lists is a PITA for everyone.
>
>Could we think of it as a tree, with subsections branching into other
>lists?
1) Too hard to follow,
2) The other lists are decidedly NOT neutral,
3) breaks thread filters,
4) Not all participants are members of all lists (most of them are on IFWP)
5) Breaking the thread risks being ignored.
6) Please quit being "funny".
This list get a few hundred messages per day and we want to keep to the thread.
>> >A major problem seems to be that many people do not see the TLD name
>> >as serving this role of differentiation among uses of the same TM
>> >name.
>> >
> In fact, it seems as tho the DN tree is being inverted, as if (e.g.)
> NMA.COM and NMA.ORG are branches of some NMA root!
>
>> Why to TM attorney's always ignore the administrative portion of the
>> name
>> (the TLD), in their suits? Is there some issue with trademark law that
>> requires them to do this? If there is no such requirement then why do
>> it?
>> What is to be gained?
>
> What could be gained by that inversion is clear to me, at least.
Good, then why not state it?
>But it also leads me to wonder if we have been too literal in
>construing the *third level namespace. Is there a functional problem
>if www.nma.com was one ownership, and xxx.nma.com was
>another? (Each one of course could register whatever space they
>needed for their own network, but really, would such a list be bigger
>than *two* characters could deal with?)
Could you clarify this?
___________________________________________________
Roeland M.J. Meyer -
e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Internet phone: hawk.lvrmr.mhsc.com
Personal web pages: http://staff.mhsc.com/~rmeyer
Company web-site: http://www.mhsc.com
___________________________________________________
KISS ... gotta love it!
