Fine and dandy, but the only other trademark lawyers on this list--the ones who
have handled more litigation in this area than you have--agree with me.
So your pretense that this is a matter of expertise is dishonest, and obviously so
to anyone who follows the discussion.
I look forward to what k
jeff Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Greg Skinner wrote:
>> We might very well wind up with only a few large
>> companies as registries, because the others just won't be able to
>> survive financially.
> Good point here, and a dam shame too really. But you are likely to
> to end up bein
Milton Mueller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>It is truly bizarre that so much controversy and investment has gone into
>the DNS battle with so little information about how domain names are
>actually used.
>People assume--and it is basically an undocumented assumption, supported
>only by anecdotal
So it seems the order of nature that is being
rammed down our collective throats as we all
madly tap away at keyboards is derived from a
rather over-rippened novel vision of dubious
perfection based on an early twentieth century
facist delusion which itself is based upon the
MYSTERIOUS wor
Thanks very much to Gordon Cook for all the EXCELLENT background
materials on USG-Postel-USPS and the .US question. It makes for
fascinating (and scarey) reading. Yup, no more security problems
with USPS DN/street address mapping. The USPS Ether-Police will
swoop right down on all those evil cyber
Martin Schwimmer writes:
> Yes, among the reasons why ebay.firm, ebay.inc, ebay.shop and ebay.info
> would likely result in confusion is not only because of the much
> maligned habit of people guessing, and the use of keyword technology in
> browswers, but because of the use of the domain name as
On Fri, 19 Feb 1999, jeff Williams wrote:
> Oh, no problem with AFFORDING it William. The POLICY is that we
> use the internet to provide all this information. Isn't that what you and many
> others have been screaming about?
You use the internet, yet you have no domain name, and no website?
On 20-Feb-99 Greg Skinner wrote:
> William X. Walsh wrote:
>
> > Greg Skinner wrote:
>
> >> At any rate, since the registry business is still in its infancy, I
> >> guess we'll have to wait and see what happens.
>
> > Or not. I don't plan to wait, and I am sure I am not alone.
>
> No
>Well, the allegation has been made that on-going businesses are threatened
>>with extinction when NSI sends the 37-day letter, in which case it would
>>make sense to get together the court filing fees and about a $1000 in
>legal fees
>>to file a declaratory judgment complaint with pendant tort cl
Einar Stefferud wrote:
>Well, it is very simple! More TLDs make it easier for parties to
>share the use of given SLD names, each under a distinctly different
>TLD, so the faster we add new gTLDS, the faster we will solve the
>conflict problems, and conversely, the slower we go the slower we
>solv
William X. Walsh wrote:
> Greg Skinner wrote:
>> At any rate, since the registry business is still in its infancy, I
>> guess we'll have to wait and see what happens.
> Or not. I don't plan to wait, and I am sure I am not alone.
No offense ... what I meant is as the registry business evolve
jeff Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Greg Skinner wrote:
>> If I understand the ORSC position, the problem is a lack of gTLDs.
>> The more you create, the less problem you have with trademarks,
>> because for every trademarked name that exists, you have a TLD to put
>> it in.
> THis woul
As it is now, which however includes the fact that a membership will eventually be
defined and the board will eventually be elected by it.
--MM
Greg Skinner wrote:
> Milton, when you refer to ICANN, do you mean as it is currently established
> and staffed, or how an ideal organization comprised
> I could offer other reasons for ml.org's downfall. For example, the
> advertising model for ISP services has shown to be less successful
> than the subscription model. A local ISP (biggernet) that funded its
The difference is that those companies were trying to make a profit, rather
than p
Mueller refers to my blatnat irrationality and talks about how greedy pizza
hut would be if someone obtained pizza-hut.co.na and concludes:
> It certainly bears no
>relationship to trademark law.
You know, reasonable folks can differ on these issues, but after a certain
point all that's left for
"William X. Walsh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>It has been shown that a registry with well over 200,000 registered
>names can be operated offering names for free (and indeed providing
>additional services other than just domain delegation, including url
>redirection, dynamic dns, etc, even email
>People assume--and it is basically an undocumented assumption, supported
>only by anecdotal evidence--that people guess the name and type it into
>their browser. That behavior would make a common domain name
>extraordinarily valuable. Certainly it occurs, sometimes--but what about
>bookmarks, sea
William and all,
William X. Walsh wrote:
> On 19-Feb-99 jeff Williams wrote:
> > Wendy and all,
> >
> >Jesus Wendy, do ya think that you guys could get this URL up on
> > a server that has some performance. It is timing out before I can even
> > get it loaded!!! What kinda a rinky-dink
Greg and all,
Greg Skinner wrote:
jeff Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Greg Skinner wrote:
>> In the absence of hard data, people will argue their opinion based
on
>> their experience. No one knows for sure what will happen when
the
>> safe TLD limit is exceeded. Anyway, even if TLDs are
On 19-Feb-99 Greg Skinner wrote:
> Also, it seems to me there's been a fair amount of objection to stiff
> requirements for operating a TLD registry. Adding more TLDs would
> certainly raise the bar, in terms of processing and bandwidth
> requirements. In such an environment, the well-heele
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kerry Miller) wrote:
> Can DNS performance be monitored, to provide a *technical
> justification for limiting a given TLD size?
Yes
> Its actually unreasonable, but this is where trying everything to the
> almighty dollar gets you: bigger firms tie up more namespace, and
>
On 19-Feb-99 jeff Williams wrote:
> Wendy and all,
>
>Jesus Wendy, do ya think that you guys could get this URL up on
> a server that has some performance. It is timing out before I can even
> get it loaded!!! What kinda a rinky-dink web server you Hvad
> folks running over ther a
Greg and all,
Greg Skinner wrote:
> Dr Eberhard W Lisse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Greg Skinner writes:
>
> >> In the absence of hard data, people will argue their opinion based on
> >> their experience.
>
> -snip other comments of questionable valud -
>
> >
Greg,
> Does anyone have an idea of how many TLDs potentially will be
> registered? For example, how many types of business (or any other
> organizational) classifications exist? Would TLDs be restricted to
> marks only?
>
> The reason I am asking is because once we get to the level of hundre
jeff Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Greg Skinner wrote:
>> In the absence of hard data, people will argue their opinion based on
>> their experience. No one knows for sure what will happen when the
>> safe TLD limit is exceeded. Anyway, even if TLDs are added a thousand
>> at a time, I'
I am preparing an article on ICANN for a professional
association with a substantial readership.
I'm really interested in where people stand on this spectrum:
1. ICANN is an unmitigated disaster and should be resisted,
ignored or even destroyed
2. ICANN is imperfect and problematical but it is w
Milton, when you refer to ICANN, do you mean as it is currently established
and staffed, or how an ideal organization comprised of elected representatives
would be?
--gregbo
Kent Crispin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 19, 1999 at 02:44:19PM -0800, Greg Skinner wrote:
>> 100,000 seems to be a popular figure [for a safe limit on the # of
>> TLDs]
> Not in my experience. People who really know about this stuff say
> few thousand, usually, to maybe a few ten
Kent Crispin wrote:
> The IAB was asked to make a
> formal study; they did; they said there was no problem with a few
> hundred to perhaps a few thousand TLDs; anything past that was
> unknowable at the present time.
When was this study made, and is it publicly available?
On Fri, Feb 19, 1999 at 02:44:19PM -0800, Greg Skinner wrote:
> >> In the absence of hard data, people will argue their opinion based on
> >> their experience.
>
> > So, tell us about your experience.
>
> Having worked on and studied some applications that require millions
> of bidirectional n
Dr Eberhard W Lisse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Greg Skinner writes:
>> In the absence of hard data, people will argue their opinion based on
>> their experience.
> So, tell us about your experience.
Having worked on and studied some applications that require
Greg and all,
Greg Skinner wrote:
> Dr Eberhard W Lisse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >> I happen to agree with the opinions expressed by Keith Moore, as they
> >> match with my experience.
>
> > So I happen to disagree, from my experience.
> > And?
>
> In the absence of hard data, people will
Another good example of the blatant irrationality of the assumptions about user
behavior underlying the TM claims. Pizza Hut thinks that it MUST control
"pizza-hut.co.na" exactly why? Because someone, somewhere in the world MIGHT
POSSIBLY type that name in? And because that remote possibility pose
It is truly bizarre that so much controversy and investment has gone into
the DNS battle with so little information about how domain names are
actually used.
People assume--and it is basically an undocumented assumption, supported
only by anecdotal evidence--that people guess the name and type it
Greg and all,
Greg Skinner wrote:
"Roeland M.J. Meyer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>At 10:47 AM 2/19/99 -0800, Greg Skinner wrote:
>>There is a comprehensive discussion of the effect of adding many
more
>>TLDs on DNS by Keith Moore. You can find it at
>>http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname
Wendy and all,
Jesus Wendy, do ya think that you guys could get this URL up
on
a server that has some performance. It is timing out before I
can even
get it loaded!!! What kinda a rinky-dink web server you Hvad
folks running over ther anyway? If you need a good one I got
a 2cpu alpha you
Greg,
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Greg Skinner writes:
> In the absence of hard data, people will argue their opinion based on
> their experience.
So, tell us about your experience.
> No one knows for sure what will happen when the safe TLD limit is
> exceeded.
What safe limit would th
Dave and all,
Thanks Dave, however we have already issued several sets of comments
and suggestions to WIPO on RFC3. Do you really expect that
anyone's comments or suggestions that are not in line with the
RFC conclusions will be considered seriously? We don't.
Dave Farber wrote:
> Date: Fri
Dr Eberhard W Lisse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I happen to agree with the opinions expressed by Keith Moore, as they
>> match with my experience.
> So I happen to disagree, from my experience.
> And?
In the absence of hard data, people will argue their opinion based on
their experience. No
Greg and all,
Unfortunately Keiths "Ideas" are not based on any statistical data at
all,
and are therefore his "Opinion" and nothing more. However, we on the
other hand have conducted exhaustive simulations with up to 10k additional
TLD's with respect to the DNS and BIND being able to handle
I encourage anyone who has not examined this powerful critique to do so.
Michael Froomkin - Public Interest Representative, WIPO Panel of Experts wrote:
> I have prepared a document entitled "A Critique of WIPO's RFC 3" which is
> available from http://www.law.miami.edu/~amf .
>
> I argue that W
At 01:26 AM 2/19/99 -0800, you wrote:
>At 05:12 PM 2/17/99 -0600, you wrote:
>>
>>
>>How could it possibly make "economic sense" to spend thousands of dollars
>>defending one's right to a $35 per year domain name, particularly if said
>>name is not being used for commercial purposes?
>
Well, the
Greg,
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Greg Skinner writes:
> Most of what I have read on this subject is personal opinion, as there
> is no hard data (we don't have hundreds of thousands of TLDs now), nor
> have there been simulations, as far as I know.
Well, there is Germany with its 7+ S
"Roeland M.J. Meyer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>At 10:47 AM 2/19/99 -0800, Greg Skinner wrote:
>>There is a comprehensive discussion of the effect of adding many more
>>TLDs on DNS by Keith Moore. You can find it at
>>http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/email/late.htm
>>It is submissi
Date: Fri, 19 Feb 1999 15:03:40 -0500 (EST)
From: "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Dave Farber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: For IP re: A Critique of WIPO's RFC 3
I have prepared a "A Critique of WIPO's RFC 3" which is available from
http://www.law.miami.edu/~amf
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Roeland M.J. Meyer" wri
tes:
> At 10:47 AM 2/19/99 -0800, Greg Skinner wrote:
> >Dr Eberhard W Lisse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >>Whether you do it on 2LD, 3LD or even 4LD level, it seems to work, so
> >>why not on TLD level? It's mainly a matter of horse pow
>>Also, in response to Martin Schwimmer:
>>
>>>In other words, if you added .inc, .ltd., .firm, .shop and .store
>>>tomorrow, then anonymous folks could tomorrow register ebay.inc,
>>>ebay.ltd, ebay.firm, ebay.shop and ebay.store, all of which, in my
>>>humble but professional opinion, are likely
At 10:47 AM 2/19/99 -0800, Greg Skinner wrote:
>Dr Eberhard W Lisse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>Whether you do it on 2LD, 3LD or even 4LD level, it seems to work, so
>>why not on TLD level? It's mainly a matter of horse power, I'm quite
>>sure BIND is capable.
>
>There is a comprehensive discus
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Greg Skinner writes:
> Dr Eberhard W Lisse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >Whether you do it on 2LD, 3LD or even 4LD level, it seems to work, so
> >why not on TLD level? It's mainly a matter of horse power, I'm quite
> >sure BIND is capable.
>
> There is a compreh
At 09:34 AM 2/19/99 -0800, Greg Skinner wrote:
>Stef <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>So, the mystery of what is the ORSC "policy postion" is that ORSC
>>advocates opening up the root to as many TLDs as the market wants.
>>No more, no less! And sooner rather than later!
>
>Hmmm ...
>
>Does anyone
Dr Eberhard W Lisse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Whether you do it on 2LD, 3LD or even 4LD level, it seems to work, so
>why not on TLD level? It's mainly a matter of horse power, I'm quite
>sure BIND is capable.
There is a comprehensive discussion of the effect of adding many more
TLDs on DNS by
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Greg Skinner writes:
> The reason I am asking is because once we get to the level of hundreds
> of thousands of TLDs, we risk the DNS performance problems that have
> been discussed earlier. That would have an effect on the entire
> Internet. So it seems at the v
Stef and all,
Einar Stefferud wrote:
> Hello Gregbo -- You ask...
>
> }I guess I have never really understood the ORSC position on new TLDs,
> }because it doesn't seem to me that it makes the TM problems go away
> }for quite some time, if ever.
>
> Well, it is very simple! More TLDs make it eas
>From: "Michael Froomkin - Public Interest Representative, WIPO Panel of
Experts" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>X-Sender: amf@boxster
>Reply-To: "Michael Froomkin - Public Interest Representative, WIPO Panel of
Experts" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], DNS Policy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PRO
Stef <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>So, the mystery of what is the ORSC "policy postion" is that ORSC
>advocates opening up the root to as many TLDs as the market wants.
>No more, no less! And sooner rather than later!
Hmmm ...
Does anyone have an idea of how many TLDs potentially will be
regis
Martin Schwimmer writes:
+ In other words, if you added .inc, .ltd., .firm, .shop and .store
+ tomorrow, then anonymous folks could tomorrow register ebay.inc,
+ ebay.ltd, ebay.firm, ebay.shop and ebay.store, all of which, in my
+ humble but professional opinion, are likely to create confusion wi
FYI:
. . .
One of the key issues of trademarks in cyberspace involves cybersquatting, or
domain-name hijacking, a process in which a person or business tries to snap up
the names of popular companies or trademark holders, then resell them to those
commercial interests at a substantial markup.
>The wierd part of this whole issue is that the TM forces seem to be
>dead set against the DNS being allowed to have numerous TLD categories
>like the TM "industry" has, which would allow the same SLD name to be
>unabiguously used by different parties with different TLDs, just
>because the same SL
Stef,
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Einar Stefferud writes:
> Because the lack of gTLD names is THE CORE PROBLEM!
Or CORE's problem? :-)-O
el
>
>From: "Ben Edelman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: Remote Participation in the Singapore Open Meeting
>Date: Fri, 19 Feb 1999 09:19:44 -0500
>For those of you who can't make it to Singapore for the March 3 Open
>Meeting, provisions are being made for remote real-time pa
Hello Gregbo -- You ask...
}I guess I have never really understood the ORSC position on new TLDs,
}because it doesn't seem to me that it makes the TM problems go away
}for quite some time, if ever.
Well, it is very simple! More TLDs make it easier for parties to
share the use of given SLD names
All,
Some thoughts:
After re-reading the ICANN's accreditation guidelines some questions
came to mind from myself and many of our staff/members.
ICANN's guidelines ar at: http://www.icann.org/draftguidelines.html#I.E
Questions:
1.) Whom and how will these guidelines be approved or otherwis
Bill and all,
Bill Lovell wrote:
> At 05:43 AM 2/17/99 +00-04, you wrote:
> >
> >Supposing that NSF's granting a monopoly to NSI is defensible,
> >wouldn't this behavior stand as abuse of the privilege? How come
> >nobody has taken NSI to court?
> >
> >Supposing it isnt defensible, how come no
On Fri, 19 Feb 1999, Bill Lovell wrote:
> At 05:12 PM 2/17/99 -0600, you wrote:
> >
> >
> >How could it possibly make "economic sense" to spend thousands of dollars
> >defending one's right to a $35 per year domain name, particularly if said
> >name is not being used for commercial purposes?
>
>
On Fri, 19 Feb 1999, Bill Lovell wrote:
> At 05:43 AM 2/17/99 +00-04, you wrote:
> >
> >Supposing that NSF's granting a monopoly to NSI is defensible,
> >wouldn't this behavior stand as abuse of the privilege? How come
> >nobody has taken NSI to court?
> >
> >Supposing it isnt defensible, how
At 05:43 AM 2/17/99 +00-04, you wrote:
>
>Supposing that NSF's granting a monopoly to NSI is defensible,
>wouldn't this behavior stand as abuse of the privilege? How come
>nobody has taken NSI to court?
>
>Supposing it isnt defensible, how come nobody has sued USG?
>Does it really need WIPO t
At 05:12 PM 2/17/99 -0600, you wrote:
>
>
>How could it possibly make "economic sense" to spend thousands of dollars
>defending one's right to a $35 per year domain name, particularly if said
>name is not being used for commercial purposes?
Well, maybe because you just don't like getting kicked i
Chris,
An expression of interest, of course.
Ivan
-Original Message-
From: Christopher Ambler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, February 19, 1999 4:19 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [IFWP] Prospective Registries Please Respond
If you repre
This isn't my bag, but for those of you who might have missed
this article, it seems that some companies do not like the new
NSI policy that restricts access to all that good stuff. :-)
http://www.wired.com/news/news/politics/story/17973.html
Bill Lovell
Actually, Kent, if the vision inspires the heart,
the mind can finds ways to make it a reality.
Truth is, PAB dreads genuine democracy,
Therefore you try to belittle the very notion.
Dismissing principles as generalizations
is another rhetorical trick, as we both know.
-- ken
Ken Freed
Media Visi
Kerry and all,
Kerry Miller wrote:
> Ken wrote,
> >
>
> >
> > The Internet is based on decentralized
> > architecture, so let Internet governance
> > be decentralized. Just because it's a new
> > way of being in the world does not mean
> > it won't work. We need to experiment first.
> >
> > > ..
71 matches
Mail list logo
