X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0
Importance: Normal
Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1999 11:03:42 -0500
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sender: Owner-Domain-Policy [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: Chuck Gomes [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [ifwp] NSI Domain Name Dispute Stats
X
How is adding more gTLDs going to change
anything unless we "fix" what we already have?
Amen to that!
Ellen Rony Co-author
The Domain Name Handbook http://www.domainhandbook.com
//
Ellen Rony a écrit:
How is adding more gTLDs going to change
anything unless we "fix" what we already have?
Amen to that!
Fixing things that were badly made, or that were designed for outmoded and
obsolete systems, and have broken down, is not always the wisest policy. It
often makes
Greg Skinner wrote:
I don't want to go so far as to say that a domain name must map to an
IP address. That would rule out domain names that map to MX records
that forward mail to hosts that are not attached to the Internet
proper, for example. But I do think that the assignment of domain
But we already have structured TLDs (org, net, com, ccTLDs) and they don't
seem to matter -- the current dispute policy (and apparently the current
feeling of the intellectual property owners in a lot of cases) is that the
only part that matters is the domain name -- not the TLD it is in nor any
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], "Martin B. Schwimmer"
writes:
I hope the rest of you are listening. Sturctured TLDs (or rTLDs as some
have called them) provide context which can alleviate likelihood of
confusion. mycarisaporsche.com has a different connotation from
mycarisaporsche.per or
Marty,
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], "Martin B. Schwimmer"
writes:
In short, the struture of today's structured TLDs are not enforced
and do not communicate a context sufficient enough to allow DNs
being utilized as similar trademarks to co-exist.
From a purely technical standpoint, there
Ron--
That's one of the problems: com, net, and org are *not* structured TLDs. NSI stopped
any effort to make them into that some time ago. I could register in any one of them
tomorrow if I wanted to spend $70. The more aggressive trademark holders have pushed
against this boundary too, and found
No, structured TLDs do not mean that you, the registry, must perform trademark checks
before
registering a name. It simply means that the *innocent* domain name registrant engaged
in a string
conflict has an additional line of defense when challenged. To wit:
Counsel Schwimmer: Your honor, my
Milton Mueller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That's one of the problems: com, net, and org are *not* structured
TLDs. NSI stopped any effort to make them into that some time ago. I
could register in any one of them tomorrow if I wanted to spend
$70.
NSI's registration policies have set precedents
Not only has it acted as a court, but it has done so as part of a
government-granted exclusive right to issue domain names. So why didn't
the USG fix this when it renewed the contract? Becky?
--MM
Greg Skinner wrote:
Carl Oppedahl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
One must not forget that Mr. Gomes
]]
Sent: Tuesday, February 02, 1999 9:56 AM
To: IFWP Discussion List
Subject: Re: [ifwp] NSI Domain Name Dispute Stats
I believe, but am not sure, that the statistics cited by
Gomes refer to the
number of times NSI used the policy suspended a name. I say
this because the
Gomes statements say "we&
Yes, of course, it all depends on commercial use and likelihood of confusion.
It does not depend on the character string. My opinion, below, was based on an
assumption that it was OK for an innocent porsche enthusiast to use it. In a
non-commercial TLD, for example, such as you have advocated.
At 03:54 PM 2/4/99 -0500, you wrote:
Milton,
The numbers provided reflect the number of times the policy
was invoked which includes times when the name was not
suspended. The numbers do show a tapering off in the times
we have invoked the policy.
Chuck
We should not forget cases that NSI
[EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit:
Milton,
The numbers provided reflect the number of times the policy
was invoked which includes times when the name was not
suspended.
Thanks for clarifying this, Chuck. I, for one, took them in this sense.
The numbers do show a tapering off in the times
we
to deal with?
-Original Message-
From: Michael Sondow [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, February 01, 1999 6:57 PM
To: IFWP Discussion List
Cc: Chuck Gomes
Subject: Re: [ifwp] NSI Domain Name Dispute Stats
[EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit:
Per the request of Michael Sondow
Bill Lovell a écrit:
And thus the great unwashed millions indeed DO need representation:
To Mr. Mrs. Mom Pop Herb Emporium, capital assets $283, the
NSI dispute policy is their ONLY problem.
I'm surprised to find myself taking the side of Bill Lovell, but he's spot
on, here. How many
Ron Fitzherbert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What would be the problem with the following (from a TM/legal standpoint):
I file a request for xyz123.dom -- the request is then "published" (it
could or could not be made active at the same time). People then have x
days to file a "protest" with
Mikki and all,
Is it time to start a ANTI-ICANN phone campaign and a
NTIA-STOP-THE-ICANN
campaign?
IS IT TIME TO TRASHCAN THE ICANN??
Regards,
Mikki Barry wrote:
>Ron Fitzherbert [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>What would be the problem with the following (from a TM/legal standpoint):
>
>>I file
Mikki Barry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I wrote:
I'm not sure what you mean by netTM, but the method of filing an
application that is available for public review is used for radio and
TV licenses here in the US. I think the idea of putting domain name
applications up for public review is a
Indicating the intended use would minimize the pokey.org/veronica.org
scenarios.
Very doubtful. In pokey, veronica, AND pseudo, the corporations involved
were informed that the uses were non commercial and non infringing. In
both pokey and veronica, it was not until the press was informed and
Except you don't see the level of what you refer to as "reverse
highjacking" in trademark opposition or cancellation procedures, where
applicants state the specified goods or services for a mark.
At 09:33 PM 2/3/99 -0500, you wrote:
Indicating the intended use would minimize the
What I mean by netTM (which I guess I'll TM here) is a "new"
classification of trademark -- one that applies to the Internet only and
requires that the "TM" be the FQDN -- ie, xyz.com and xyz.net can be two
totally different entities and neither of which would need to be the
"real" world Xyz
At 08:54 PM 2/1/99 -0800, William X. Walsh wrote:
It is also unfortunate that the trademark interests are not willing to follow
the same course.
As with most people, they will use whatever mechanisms are afforded to
them, to gain advantage. Don't expect idealism from people who have a
are focusing more on non-trademarked names.
Chuck
-Original Message-
From: Mikki Barry [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, February 01, 1999 7:17 PM
To: IFWP Discussion List
Cc: IFWP Discussion List; Chuck Gomes
Subject: Re: [ifwp] NSI Domain Name Dispute Stats
At 6:56 PM -0500 2/1/99
List
Cc: Chuck Gomes
Subject: Re: [ifwp] NSI Domain Name Dispute Stats
[EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit:
Per the request of Michael Sondow, the following data is
provided in response to the question "how many times did
NSI
invoke its Domain Name Dispute Policy?"
During the slightly m
At 06:13 AM 2/2/99 , [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Mikki,
Another observation might be that the much maligned and
disliked NSI dispute policy might actually discourage
cybersqatters from going after trademarked names because
they know the mark holders can invoke the policy. If this
is true, it could
At 01:50 AM 2/2/99 , Bill Lovell wrote:
At 08:54 PM 2/1/99 -0800, you wrote:
On 02-Feb-99 Dave Crocker wrote:
At 01:48 PM 2/1/99 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
provided in response to the question "how many times did NSI
invoke its Domain Name Dispute Policy?"
So 800 or more times a year,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Maybe the policy has discouraged people from registering
trademarked names. This of course is just a hypothesis. It
would be difficult to substantiate.
I don't disagree with that hypothesis, but I think there's more to it.
It's likely that, early on, the large
Carl Oppedahl wrote:
At 06:16 AM 2/2/99 , [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Maybe the policy has discouraged people from registering
trademarked names.
NSI refuses to allow the public to review its domain name cutoff decisions.
I suggest that this secretiveness is due at least in part to NSI's
I believe, but am not sure, that the statistics cited by Gomes refer to the
number of times NSI used the policy suspended a name. I say this because the
Gomes statements say "we" (NSI) invoked the policy.
The statistics that are in the Syracuse study and the WIPO report both
contain measures of
: Mikki Barry [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, February 02, 1999 10:50 AM
To: IFWP Discussion List
Subject: RE: [ifwp] NSI Domain Name Dispute Stats
Mikki,
Another observation might be that the much maligned and
disliked NSI dispute policy might actually discourage
cybersqatters from going
At 07:55 AM 2/2/99 , Milton Mueller wrote:
I believe, but am not sure, that the statistics cited by Gomes refer to the
number of times NSI used the policy suspended a name. I say this because the
Gomes statements say "we" (NSI) invoked the policy.
The boom is over, the corporations have woken
At 09:50 AM 2/2/99 , [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I would say yes. Cybersquating restricted to trademarked
names only? I think not. There are some very desirable
names that are too generic to trademark but they could still
have high value. Maybe my definition of cybersquating is
broader than
Except that WIPO's dispute resolution problem may soon supersede it, and create
the same problems: be willing to risk $3,000 in procedural costs or give up when
your name is challenged.
--MM
Bill Lovell wrote:
And thus the great unwashed millions indeed DO need representation:
To Mr. Mrs.
arator _________
Subject: Re: [Fwd: [ifwp] NSI Domain Name Dispute Stats]
Author: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Martin B. Schwimmer) at INTERNET
Date:2/2/99 6:48 PM
Yeah, let's play the home version of the law game.
Without a knowledge of the pre-existing law, it's ju
At 09:13 PM 2/2/99 -0500, you wrote:
Actually the GOPED case is a good illustration, where idiosync.com/goped
was a non-infringing use of go-ped. JOHN DOE'S PARTS as the name on the
shop awning, WE SELL PORSCHE PARTS in the window is ok, PORSCHE PARTS as
the name on the shop awning is probably
At 06:38 PM 2/2/99 -0800, you wrote:
Carl Oppedahl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
One must not forget that Mr. Gomes has an advantage over all of the
rest of us -- he is with NSI, which conducts these "invocations" in
fiercely protected secrecy. If the public could review these
"invocations" the way
During the relevant periods:
(1) how many times did parties request that the Policy be invoked?
(2) of the times the Policy was invoked, how often did the Policy lead to
No Action Taken, Suspension, Deregistration or defenestration?
At 01:48 PM 2/1/99 -0500, you wrote:
Per the request of
I understand the situation very well, Mikki. What I was working towards was
a useful series of responses from C. Gomes that could be used as evidence
for your thesis. I won't be able to elicit those statements from him if you
cram the answers down his throat. Please try to hold back a little.
Mikki Barry a écrit:
I understand the situation very well, Mikki. What I was working towards was
a useful series of responses from C. Gomes that could be used as evidence
for your thesis. I won't be able to elicit those statements from him if you
cram the answers down his throat. Please try
On 02-Feb-99 Dave Crocker wrote:
At 01:48 PM 2/1/99 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
provided in response to the question "how many times did NSI
invoke its Domain Name Dispute Policy?"
So 800 or more times a year, NSI goes beyond the rule of established law
and extends trademark
42 matches
Mail list logo
