>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sun Jun 27 04:39:31 1999
Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Received: from dfw-ix4.ix.netcom.com (dfw-ix4.ix.netcom.com [206.214.98.4])
by ns1.vrx.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B5B0F00F
for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Sun, 27 Jun 1999 04:39:30 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from smap@localhost)
by dfw-ix4.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4)
id CAA19612 for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Sun, 27 Jun 1999 02:51:52 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from dal-tx8-57.ix.netcom.com(207.94.123.121) by dfw-ix4.ix.netcom.com via
smap (V1.3)
id rma019601; Sun Jun 27 02:51:19 1999
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sun, 27 Jun 1999 01:02:21 +0100
From: Jeff Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Organization: INEG. Inc. (Spokesman INEGroup)
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.08 [en] (Win16; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: IFWP Discussion List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [IFWP] Re: "thin" registries
References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> Bill and all,
>
> I certainly agree with your views on the "First-come-first-serve"
> model that has been in effect with respect to registering DN's.
> IMHO, we really have come full circle back to that being the only
> fair and reasonable process for the registration of DN's.
>
> The problem with this "First-come-first-serve" model, is the big
> TM interests don't like it and feel that it circumvents TM law
> in cyberspace. I say to that "Nonsense", if you guys didn't
> initially believe that the Internet and the DNS in particular
> was going to survive, which most of the big TM interests
> didn't BTW, than you just got out smarted from a business
> perspective. This is where the mess started getting nasty...
>
> The rest as the say, is now history, and we are still building
> on that history today...
>
> Bill Lovell wrote:
>
> > At 06:34 PM 6/26/99 -0400, you wrote:
> > >Tony,
> > >
> > >It seems odd to me that architecture would have the consumer--the would-be
> > >domain name holder--shop registrars for domain name dispute policies and
> > >whois data representation. After all, I'd imagine that the point of a
> > >dispute policy is to balance the interests of the holder and other later
> > >claimants both substantively and procedurally. Suppose in a world of
> > >varying policies a registrar offers the following simple one: we hand out
> > >names first-come first-served no matter what. The consumer who anticipates
> > >any question of her right to hold the sought-after name would go with that
> > >registrar, and a disputant would be left with no policy at all.
> >
> > Which is the way it started out, before NSI's legal advisor whom I won't
> > bother to name spotted a way to start a gold rush and haul in the $$$$ --
> > it was "I register first-come first-served; if you've a problem I'll put you
> > two in touch, and then you and him fight; I'll hold your coats." Nothing
> > could have been more simple and equitable. As for "no policy at all,"
> > why should registrars have a "policy" about trademark rights? NSF,
> > the DOC (except for its Patent and Trademark Office which clearly
> > is not consulted), WIPO, registrars, ICANN, you net mavens and ISPs,
> > etc., don't know diddly squat about trademarks anyway and should never
> > have entered into that domain -- um -- area.
> >
> > Bill Lovell
>
> Regards,
>
> --
> Jeffrey A. Williams
> CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
> Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
> E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Contact Number: 972-447-1894
> Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Contact Number: 972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"They were of a mind to govern us and we were of a mind to govern ourselves."
