Bill,
If by the above you mean it is necessary to recite the classification
of the trademark, that will not fly, and in any case the classification
is only a device for the purpose of the USPTO in any event, and does
not define the scope of the goods or services encompassed by the
mark.
---
/William,
3. Consumer-driven e-commerce will only work in chartered
TLDs if there are no unchartered TLDs. In other words, who
the hell wants to be ford.automakers when you can be
ford.com, especially when
.automakers is one of thousands of chartered
On Mon, 15 Feb 1999, William X. Walsh wrote:
On 16-Feb-99 Dr Eberhard W Lisse wrote:
Oh, I agree with you entirely, unless, for instance, the chartering
authority were to take care of that for you by, say, issuing valid PGP keys
before a domain application was even possible.
At 08:39 PM 2/15/99 -0800, William X. Walsh wrote:
On 16-Feb-99 Dr Eberhard W Lisse wrote:
Oh, I agree with you entirely, unless, for instance, the chartering
authority were to take care of that for you by, say, issuing valid PGP
keys
before a domain application was even possible.
I
I have some interesting value questions (I hope)...
1. What is the value of an SLD in a Chartered TLD if the TLD
"name-string" does not work with the desired SLD name-string.
2. What is the value of an SLD in a chartered TLD if the business
changes over time, such that the charter
On 16-Feb-99 Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote:
NOW we go back up a few thousand feet to the primary question, do TLD
charters serve a purpose? In this specific context, will they help with the
TM vs DNS problem? Bill and Marty both say that they will. Personally, I
have always believed in
At 08:40 AM 2/16/99 +0200, Dr Eberhard W Lisse wrote:
On Mon, 15 Feb 1999, William X. Walsh wrote:
On 16-Feb-99 Dr Eberhard W Lisse wrote:
Oh, I agree with you entirely, unless, for instance, the chartering
authority were to take care of that for you by, say, issuing valid PGP
keys
On 16-Feb-99 Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote:
I am purely looking at the implementation. If implementation is not
possible, we can stop wasting time and insults on the issue.
I don't think implementation is the major issue at the moment.
Certainly it is.
Arguments have been put out there that
On Tue, 16 Feb 1999, Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote:
NOW we go back up a few thousand feet to the primary question, do TLD
charters serve a purpose?
Why should they when they can not be enforced?
el
In message 000501be5955$5a47cde0$[EMAIL PROTECTED], "Antony Va
n Couvering" writes:
Eberhard Lisse wrote,
But then, you agree with what I am saying, someone has to decide: "Is
this registration appropriate for the proposed domain?"
Even if AI worked, there is just nothing around that
On Mon, 15 Feb 1999, William X. Walsh wrote:
Question to the list : anyone familiar with Texas law? Is the public
posting of a message here for a meeting that does not exist a violation
of any Texas Laws? If someone were to make this trip and find (not
surprisingly) that the meeting was
At 12:44 AM 2/16/99 -0800, William X. Walsh wrote:
On 16-Feb-99 Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote:
NOW we go back up a few thousand feet to the primary question, do TLD
charters serve a purpose? In this specific context, will they help with the
TM vs DNS problem? Bill and Marty both say that
At 11:28 AM 2/16/99 +0200, Dr Eberhard W Lisse wrote:
On Tue, 16 Feb 1999, Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote:
NOW we go back up a few thousand feet to the primary question, do TLD
charters serve a purpose?
Why should they when they can not be enforced?
That is the second part of the question. To
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], "Roeland M.J. Meyer" wri
tes:
At 11:28 AM 2/16/99 +0200, Dr Eberhard W Lisse wrote:
On Tue, 16 Feb 1999, Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote:
NOW we go back up a few thousand feet to the primary question, do TLD
charters serve a purpose?
Why should they when they
Marty,
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], "Martin B. Schwimmer"
writes:
So I think the short answer to Mr. Meyer's question is that the registrar
only ensure that the form be filled out properly (Without having to make
discretionary deciisons as to the content of an answer)
Actually, come to
On Tue, 16 Feb 1999, Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote:
NOW we go back up a few thousand feet to the primary question, do TLD
charters serve a purpose?
Why should they when they can not be enforced?
el
[AVC] - Even though they are unenforceable, they might well serve a purpose.
A set of rules
William,
If chartered TLDs are the rule rather than an option, we will be
stifling business and innovation, by forcing people to narrowly
categorize their intents.
WHy should categorization be stifling? Wouldn't second-level
space give you enough room to move?
kerry
On 16-Feb-99 Antony Van Couvering wrote:
[AVC] - Even though they are unenforceable, they might well serve a purpose.
A set of rules governing use don't have to be applied beforehand, although
there should be an element of this. A set of rules can also serve to
disqualify any protest
Please bear in mind that when I suggest that "charters" or "structuring"
can alleviate certain types of DN/TM disputes I am referring only to TLDs
that will be used for commercial purposes - where the applicants themselves
choose to be designated as such.
Now Antony has asked the
On 16-Feb-99 Kerry Miller wrote:
William,
If chartered TLDs are the rule rather than an option, we will be
stifling business and innovation, by forcing people to narrowly
categorize their intents.
WHy should categorization be stifling? Wouldn't second-level
space give
At 01:40 PM 2/16/99 -0800, William X. Walsh wrote:
On 16-Feb-99 Antony Van Couvering wrote:
[AVC] - Even though they are unenforceable, they might well serve a
purpose.
A set of rules governing use don't have to be applied beforehand, although
there should be an element of this. A set of
On 16-Feb-99 Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote:
This argument was made, in the past, for complaining about COM/NET, in
that, ISPs had to have both domains as NET was supposed to be for Internet
infrastructure-only.
And we've seen how well that worked, huh? :)
--
Hi Antony -- I need to challenge some of your points;-)...
From your message Tue, 16 Feb 1999 12:33:43 -0500:
}
}
} On Tue, 16 Feb 1999, Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote:
}
} NOW we go back up a few thousand feet to the primary question, do TLD
} charters serve a purpose?
}
} Why should they when they
Can we either remove the exploder list from our responses, or remove the lists
that the exploder list sends to, so that the lists don't get two copies of
every message in this thread?
--
E-Mail: William X. Walsh [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 16-Feb-99
Time: 16:00:46
Alex and William,
Please do attempt this legal approach. After you have been made a
fool of in court, we will than pursue legal abuse and filing a false
legal action against anyone whom makes such an attempt.
Alex Kamantauskas wrote:
On Mon, 15 Feb 1999, William X. Walsh wrote:
On 17-Feb-99 William X. Walsh wrote:
Can we either remove the exploder list from our responses, or remove the
lists
that the exploder list sends to, so that the lists don't get two copies of
every message in this thread?
grumble I did it myself :)
And here I had tried to be so
Milton and all,
Milton Mueller wrote:
Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote:
Martin makes a really good case for enforcing TLD charters. NSI has allowed
them to erode simply because the TLD space has been frozen. Do you think
enforced TLD charters would help in reducing this trademark pressure?
At 11:35 PM 2/14/99 -0500, Milton Mueller wrote:
Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote:
Martin makes a really good case for enforcing TLD charters. NSI has allowed
them to erode simply because the TLD space has been frozen. Do you think
enforced TLD charters would help in reducing this trademark
Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote:
Martin makes a really good case for enforcing TLD charters. NSI
has allowed
them to erode simply because the TLD space has been frozen. Do
you think
enforced TLD charters would help in reducing this trademark pressure?
Enforced by whom? Enforced how?
--MM
Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote:
Martin makes a really good case for enforcing TLD charters. NSI has
allowed
them to erode simply because the TLD space has been frozen. Do you think
enforced TLD charters would help in reducing this trademark pressure?
I don't agree with this assumption.
At 11:13 AM 2/13/99 -0800, Bill Lovell wrote:
At 01:35 AM 2/13/99 -0800, you wrote:
Martin makes a really good case for enforcing TLD charters. NSI has allowed
them to erode simply because the TLD space has been frozen. Do you think
enforced TLD charters would help in reducing this trademark
William and all,
William X. Walsh wrote:
On 15-Feb-99 Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote:
At this point, the mechanism is unimportant. It may very well be
unmanageable, however we need to discuss desirability first, before wasting
time discussing implementation of something which is possibly
William and all,
William X. Walsh wrote:
Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote:
Martin makes a really good case for enforcing TLD charters. NSI has
allowed
them to erode simply because the TLD space has been frozen. Do you think
enforced TLD charters would help in reducing this trademark
Antony and all,
Antony Van Couvering wrote:
Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote:
Martin makes a really good case for enforcing TLD charters. NSI
has allowed
them to erode simply because the TLD space has been frozen. Do
you think
enforced TLD charters would help in reducing this
At 10:26 PM 2/14/99 -0800, you wrote:
At 11:13 AM 2/13/99 -0800, Bill Lovell wrote:
At 01:35 AM 2/13/99 -0800, you wrote:
Martin makes a really good case for enforcing TLD charters. NSI has allowed
them to erode simply because the TLD space has been frozen. Do you think
enforced TLD charters
At 12:55 AM 2/15/99 -0500, Antony Van Couvering wrote:
Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote:
Martin makes a really good case for enforcing TLD charters. NSI
has allowed
them to erode simply because the TLD space has been frozen. Do
you think
enforced TLD charters would help in reducing this
At 10:16 AM 2/15/99 +0200, Dr Eberhard W Lisse wrote:
Antony,
On Mon, 15 Feb 1999, Antony Van Couvering wrote:
Milton's point is the good one and the obvious one. Chartered TLDs only
make sense if the charter can be enforced. They can only be enforced
under the following circumstances:
On 15-Feb-99 Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote:
Not necessarily. Given sufficient resources and careful crafting of
requirements, all things are implement able. It is largely a matter of
cost/effectiveness. IOW, is the solution larger than the problem? To answer
that, one must first define the
At 01:17 AM 2/15/99 -0800, William X. Walsh wrote:
On 15-Feb-99 Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote:
Not necessarily. Given sufficient resources and careful crafting of
requirements, all things are implement able. It is largely a matter of
cost/effectiveness. IOW, is the solution larger than the
Antony,
3. Consumer-driven e-commerce will only work in chartered TLDs if
there are no unchartered TLDs. In other words, who the hell wants
to be ford.automakers when you can be ford.com, especially when
.automakers is one of thousands of chartered TLDs?
I suggest that if the mandate
On 15-Feb-99 Kerry Miller wrote:
Antony,
3. Consumer-driven e-commerce will only work in chartered TLDs if
there are no unchartered TLDs. In other words, who the hell wants
to be ford.automakers when you can be ford.com, especially when
.automakers is one of thousands of
At 11:27 AM 2/15/99 -0800, Bill Lovell wrote:
At 02:49 AM 2/15/99 +00-04, you wrote:
As for *implementation, it seems like an ideal place to use XML.
What browsers/email packages now accommodate XML?
Netscape and IE4 both do partial XML (different parts, of course). It is
generally still
Antony,
In message 001301be58c3$979a6e60$[EMAIL PROTECTED], "Antony Van
Couvering" writes:
Milton's point is the good one and the obvious one. Chartered TLDs only
make sense if the charter can be enforced. They can only be enforced
under the following circumstances:
snip)
At 11:55 AM 2/15/99 -0800, you wrote:
At 11:27 AM 2/15/99 -0800, Bill Lovell wrote:
At 02:49 AM 2/15/99 +00-04, you wrote:
As for *implementation, it seems like an ideal place to use XML.
What browsers/email packages now accommodate XML?
Netscape and IE4 both do partial XML (different parts,
William and all,
To bad they (Ml.org) did not do a very good check on you. However I am
not suprised given your rather weak efforts in other areas.
William X. Walsh wrote:
On 15-Feb-99 Kerry Miller wrote:
Antony,
3. Consumer-driven e-commerce will only work in chartered TLDs
Yeah, Jeff, ok :)
Still waiting for a factual refutation of the facts at :
http://www.dso.net/wwalsh/jeffw/
--
E-Mail: William X. Walsh [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 15-Feb-99
Time: 15:06:18
--
"We may well be on our way to a
William and all,
Problem is they are obvious fakes. I already talked to your Mr
Frosty!
Is he a relation to "Frosty the snow Man" By any chance! LOL!
Facts my ass!
William X. Walsh wrote:
Yeah, Jeff, ok :)
Still waiting for a factual refutation of the facts at :
OK, I'll post this response on the website as a response to a request for a
factual response.
However, if this report is false, then it would be a real simple matter for you
to prove it and silent all critics. All you need is a few simple facts. That
you won't (and have never) posted these
Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote:
Martin makes a really good case for enforcing TLD charters. NSI has allowed
them to erode simply because the TLD space has been frozen. Do you think
enforced TLD charters would help in reducing this trademark pressure?
Enforced by whom? Enforced how?
--MM
Roberto Gaetano wrote:
A trademark is not only a string of ASCII characters, it is (potentially) a
logo that is immediately recognizable even for people that do not read.
Yes, and I wish we could get past the continual comparisons of trademarks
and domain names. A trademark is geographically
Ellen and all,
We couldn't agree with you more here Ellen. It seems that there are some
"Interested Parties" that feel or believe that TM's and DN's have some sort of
relationship that is special with regard to Domain Names. These folks that
argue this point usually have very little in depth
At 07:23 PM 2/12/99 -0800, Bill Lovell wrote:
At 07:10 PM 2/12/99 -0500, you wrote:
Let's rename this thread trademarks/DNS instead of trademarks vs. DNS. The
point of the thread (and btw hats off to Mr. Meyers for trying to get the
class to behave) is hopefully to have discussions which could
At 09:34 PM 2/12/99 -0800, Ellen Rony wrote:
Roberto Gaetano wrote:
A trademark is not only a string of ASCII characters, it is (potentially) a
logo that is immediately recognizable even for people that do not read.
Yes, and I wish we could get past the continual comparisons of trademarks
and
At 01:35 AM 2/13/99 -0800, you wrote:
Martin makes a really good case for enforcing TLD charters. NSI has allowed
them to erode simply because the TLD space has been frozen. Do you think
enforced TLD charters would help in reducing this trademark pressure?
Not being perfectly certain of the
At 10:38 PM 2/11/99 -0500, you wrote:
I may fall out of my chair, but I am not laughing. Bill Lovell is correct as
far
as he goes: WIPO has no authority to create administrative law. But the
problem is
ICANN, not WIPO per se. If ICANN, in its monopoly position, decides to adopt
WIPO's
--
/ theory
Roeland wrote,
"The" thread has a way of being hard to pin down in c-space,
doesnt it?
Provided that it stays within certain parameters, I don't have too
tough a time of it.
I agree. Up to a point in the cognitive process, the human brain is
remarkably
Kevin and all,
Kevin, William is often misstating others positions, as his one time employer
has pointed out (.TJ). He seems to have this propensity and displays it
often.
Kevin J. Connolly wrote:
Mr. Walsh,
You've misstated my position.
I am opposed to mandatory arbitration. I am in
[re-threaded]
At 02:48 PM 2/12/99 -0800, Bill Lovell wrote:
At 04:58 PM 2/12/99 -0500, you wrote:
A federal district court in California has recently opined on a "
famousmarkssucks.com" cite.
Bally Total Fitness Holding Corp. v. Faber, C.D. Cal., No. CV 98-1278 DDP
(MANx), 12/21/98 ).
[re-threaded]
At 08:02 PM 2/11/99 -0500, Martin B. Schwimmer wrote:
A
This case also provides a splendid example of how the WIPO process could
muck things up. Consider-
a) There is no assurance whatsoever that the WIPO process would have engaged
in an identical analysis.
This is a chauvinist
[re-threaded]
At 06:12 PM 2/11/99 -0500, Harold Feld wrote:
A federal district court in California has recently opined on a "
famousmarkssucks.com" cite.
Bally Total Fitness Holding Corp. v. Faber, C.D. Cal., No. CV 98-1278 DDP
(MANx), 12/21/98 ). (sorry, the only URL I have is a BNA
Why are these messages being reposted to the list again?
On 12-Feb-99 Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote:
[re-threaded]
At 06:12 PM 2/11/99 -0500, Harold Feld wrote:
A federal district court in California has recently opined on a "
famousmarkssucks.com" cite.
Bally Total Fitness Holding
Bill Lovell wrote:
Perhaps originally, but that is no longer the case. Several decisions have said
that NSI had NO duty to carry out TM analyses, and the mere registration of
a domain name cannot constitute TM infringement. Consequently, what sorry
excuse there ever existed for their having made
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Kent Crispin writes:
On Wed, Feb 10, 1999 at 07:50:22PM -0500, Milton Mueller wrote:
Bill:
You are right and Crispin, as usual, is not only wrong, but manipulatively
wrong. WIPO's proposals have nothing to do with trademark law. They are an
attempt to
At 06:17 PM 2/10/99 -0800, you wrote:
On Wed, Feb 10, 1999 at 07:50:22PM -0500, Milton Mueller wrote:
Bill:
You are right and Crispin, as usual, is not only wrong, but manipulatively
wrong. WIPO's proposals have nothing to do with trademark law. They are an
attempt to exploit the bottleneck
At 09:31 AM 2/10/99 -0800, you wrote:
My position has always been simple: where should the primary burden of
protecting trademark interests lie? Answer: The primary burden for policing
and enforcement must lie with TM holders, as it always has. This is the way
it has always been in the
At 01:51 PM 2/10/99 -0800, Bill Lovell wrote:
At 11:40 AM 2/10/99 -0800, Kent Crispin wrote:
On Wed, Feb 10, 1999 at 10:33:33AM -0800, Bill Lovell wrote:
It's nice that you are offering ideas, but they would probably be
taken more seriously if you became a little more familiar with what
is
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
At 03:07 PM 2/10/99 -0800, Greg Skinner wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kerry Miller) wrote:
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
[re-threaded] Please let's not muck with the subject line.
At 07:50 PM 2/10/99 -0500, Milton Mueller wrote:
Bill:
You are right and Crispin, as usual, is not only wrong, but manipulatively
wrong. WIPO's proposals have nothing to do with trademark law. They are an
attempt to exploit the
At 10:50 PM 2/10/99 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
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?
Bill Lovell a écrit:
The "rules" on TM-DN issues are going to be made by the courts, which
have jurisdiction, and not by any of these alphabet soups, which do not.
Haven't you read the WIPO report and the ICANN Accreditation Guidelines? The
rules are being made right now, by ICANN. There
Roeland,
I find this issue (Trademark vs. DNS) very interesting and important, but I
disagree on the fact that this is the key difference on the two drafts.
In fact, this (Trademark vs. DNS) will be one of the endless debates within
the DSNO, if and when it will be formed, but is not a divide
At 06:10 AM 2/11/99 -0500, Michael Sondow wrote:
Bret A. Fausett a écrit:
I certainly see the trademark groups playing a
role in the DNSO. Both drafts allow for their participation -- one
expressly gives them a constituency and the other provides them the
opportunity to form a constituency.
At 11:19 AM 2/11/99 -0500, Martin B. Schwimmer wrote:
Do I have do something to subscribe to the [EMAIL PROTECTED] list?
That list is a mechanical convenience. It's members are all the other
lists. It is a simple forwarding mechanism. Yes, you can use it too, iff
you are already subscribed to
"Roeland M.J. Meyer" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 03:07 PM 2/10/99 -0800, Greg Skinner wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kerry Miller) wrote:
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
---
/discussion
Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1999 00:50:13 -0800
From: "Roeland M.J. Meyer" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [IFWP] Re: Trademarks vs DNS
Could we think of it as a tree, with subsections branching into other
lists?
1) Too hard to follow,
2) The o
I may fall out of my chair, but I am not laughing. Bill Lovell is correct as far
as he goes: WIPO has no authority to create administrative law. But the problem is
ICANN, not WIPO per se. If ICANN, in its monopoly position, decides to adopt
WIPO's recommendations then it can exploit its monopoly
At 03:28 PM 2/9/99 -0800, you wrote:
Hello Bret and Roeland and all --
The AIP concepts of Research Committees that are obligated to fair
evaluation of the related issues is one way to reduce this tension and
leave the decisions to fair minded research committees.
The "rules" on TM-DN
Greg Skinner wrote:
"If the DNS namespace had been laid out originally with hierarchies
that represent the scope of organizational trademarks or service
marks, would the trademark interests still have objections? What
would the objections be -- name dilution? potential infringement?
"vinton g. cerf" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
roughly what I said is that domain names must be unique (that is,
only only target "host" can have a given domain name) but that
trademarks, because of the way they are granted, can be applied
to more than one entity (product, service). It is not
Hello Bret and Roeland and all --
I am afraid that the implications of policy positions of various
factions has a great deal to do with the entire issue of allocation of
membership constituency votes to board seats, as the policy issues
guide submerged motives for favoring one or another
At 2/9/99, 01:00 PM, Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote:
I'm just tossing this to start things off. It addresses the fundamental
issue wrt trademarks. It is an insight that I think we can all agree with
at some level. Much of the disagreements between the two drafts are on
trademark issues. I feel that it
: Trademarks vs DNS
Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote:
The big rift, between Barcelona/Monterrey and Washington DC, *is* the
involvement of the trademark contingent. Do you disagree?
Yes. I don't think anyone is suggesting that trademark interests don't
have a legitimate interest in DNS issues
At 07:24 PM 2/9/99 -0800, Bill Lovell wrote:
Like I said before, quit legislating chimera: put all the companies into
the internet yellow pages and forget it. NONE OF THIS IS IN THE
HANDS OF IFWP, MAC, CHEESE, SPAGHETTI, OR WHATEVER
ALPHABET YOU WANT.
Bill, this is not helping consensus.
Hello,
As I stated on the ORSC list, I will be focusing exclusively on this issue
for the duration. These discussions tend to take four to six weeks, so be
it. IMHO, we need to get enough agreement that the Paris and Washington DC
drafts can be reconciled. Let's see if we can ignore the
On Wed, Feb 10, 1999 at 03:09:57PM -0500, Mikki Barry wrote:
Kent Crispin said:
Your point is completely irrelevant. *ALL* of the discussions have
been concerning what can be done in the context of existing trademark
law. The WIPO procedures etc are *ALL* things that can be done in
the
At 11:40 AM 2/10/99 -0800, you wrote:
On Wed, Feb 10, 1999 at 10:33:33AM -0800, Bill Lovell wrote:
[...]
The ideas that I have advanced have been, among others, to
(a) use the time-honored Swedish concept of the Ombudsman
to look after the average citizen's rights; (b) take the whole
At 01:28 PM 2/10/99 -0800, you wrote:
On Wed, Feb 10, 1999 at 03:09:57PM -0500, Mikki Barry wrote:
Kent Crispin said:
Please re-read what I wrote. Of *course* the WIPO draft "contemplates"
things beyond current law -- that's the whole point. The question is
whether the draft specifies things
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
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Trademarks vs DNS
On Wed, Feb 10, 1999 at 03:09:57PM -0500, Mikki Barry wrote:
Kent Crispin said:
Your point is completely irrelevant. *ALL* of the discussions have
been concerning what can be done in the context of existing trademark
law
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kerry Miller) wrote:
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
On Wed, Feb 10, 1999 at 01:57:01PM -0800, Bill Lovell wrote:
But it's certainly possible I may have missed something -- perhaps
you could list the things WIPO advocates that would break current TM
law?
Well, predominantly their whole dispute resolution bit. They don't have
the authority
Kent Crispin wrote:
Of *course* the WIPO draft "contemplates"
things beyond current law -- that's the whole point. The question is
whether the draft specifies things that can't be implemented because
they would *contradict* current law. For example, contractually
mandated ADRs are
On Wed, Feb 10, 1999 at 07:50:22PM -0500, Milton Mueller wrote:
Bill:
You are right and Crispin, as usual, is not only wrong, but manipulatively
wrong. WIPO's proposals have nothing to do with trademark law. They are an
attempt to exploit the bottleneck power of ICANN's monopoly over the name
Mr. Cerf has identified the essential quality of two different systems
(with different purposes) and correctly observed that there is a
fundamental conflict in that domain names require only uniqueness (defined
as identity) for the DNS to achieve its intended purpose of designating IP
hosts
At 01:21 PM 2/9/99 -0500, Bret A. Fausett wrote:
Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote:
I'm just tossing this to start things off. It addresses the fundamental
issue wrt trademarks. It is an insight that I think we can all agree with
at some level. Much of the disagreements between the two drafts are on
Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote:
The big rift, between Barcelona/Monterrey and Washington DC, *is* the
involvement of the trademark contingent. Do you disagree?
Yes. I don't think anyone is suggesting that trademark interests don't
have a legitimate interest in DNS issues. In fact, the White Paper
97 matches
Mail list logo
