At 06:20 PM 7/23/99 -0400, you wrote:
>Bill Lovell wrote:
>> I'll admit to having a problem with gTLDs: .web is fine, but
someone
>> was posing the case in which an attorney wanted
"something.law,"
>> but the folks owning .law charge too much, are incompetent,
etc.
>
>This problem vanishes if we demand an administrative infrastructure
that
>explicitly supports registrars providing customer service to
registrants,
>irrespective of TLD. In other words, I want to register in
*.foo? I go to
>ANY registrar, or the one with which I have a strong previous
relationship,
>or have heard good things about, etc. This is what competition
is all
>about.
>
>TLDs cannot be treated as property or if someone wishes to treat them
as
>such, they should be required to protect their intellectual property
rights
>in a court of law, not through administrative fiat imposed through
arbitrary
>totalitarian control.
The problem can be exemplified by .per, for which ownership rights in
the
gTLD have been claimed. The service company model I was talking about
would have zero right of "administrative fiat" --
someone wants a name
registered, so long as it (by which I mean the whole xxx.yyy thing) is
not
already mapped to an IP, it is gets registered. If someone thinks
they own
the .yyy gTLD, they go sue the party that had xxx.yyy registered (not
the
registrar, which should have total immunity in its purely administrative
role)
-- it's as simple as that, and the first such suit would answer the
question.
(As an IP attorney, I have severe doubts that anything that has such a
functional
role as a gTLD would be subject to trademark protection, in the same way
that there is no copyright protection for functional components.
But wadda
I know?)
(I might add that I don't understand Richard Sexton's response to yours
of
above when he says you've not eliminated the problem but just moved
it.
Richard?)
Bill Lovell
>--
>Rob Raisch CTO - RivalWorks, Inc.
<http://www.rivalworks.com>
>Who do you want to play today?
>
- Re: [IFWP] Access to the database Diane Cabell
- Re: [IFWP] Re: Hilights from today's hearin... Bill Lovell
- Re: [IFWP] Re: Hilights from today's hearin... Gordon Cook
- [IFWP] A does not follow B Weisberg
- Re: [IFWP] Re: Hilights from today's he... Karl Auerbach
- Re: [IFWP] Re: Hilights from today's hearin... Karl Auerbach
- Re: [IFWP] Re: Hilights from today's hearing Richard J. Sexton
- Re: [IFWP] Re: Hilights from today's hearing Michael Sondow
- Re: [IFWP] Re: Hilights from today's hearing Bill Lovell
- RE: [IFWP] Re: Hilights from today's hearing Rob Raisch
- RE: [IFWP] Re: Hilights from today's hearin... Bill Lovell
- RE: [IFWP] Re: Hilights from today's hearin... Jay Fenello
- Re: [IFWP] Re: Hilights from today's hearing Jeff Williams
- RE: [IFWP] Re: Hilights from today's hearing Richard J. Sexton
- RE: [IFWP] Re: Hilights from today's hearing Richard J. Sexton
- Re: [IFWP] Re: Hilights from today's hearing Richard J. Sexton
- Re: [IFWP] Re: Hilights from today's hearing Richard J. Sexton
- Re: [IFWP] Re: Hilights from today's hearing Diane Cabell
- Re: [IFWP] Re: Hilights from today's hearing Kent Crispin
- Re: [IFWP] Re: Hilights from today's hearin... Diane Cabell
- Re: [IFWP] Re: Hilights from today's he... Kent Crispin