Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #34
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST          Wednesday, March 29 2000          Volume 01 : Number 034

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 15:49:42 -0800 (PST)
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] About GA membership again......

- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 28-Mar-2000 Simon Higgs wrote:
> At 12:59 PM 3/27/00 -0800, William X. Walsh wrote:
> 
>>On 27-Mar-2000 Simon Higgs wrote:
>> > I'd also like to propose that the pre-IAHC work with IANA be recognized,
>> > and that an iTLD constituency be created. Constituents can from known
>> > contributors to the Jon Postel new TLD/registry drafts, or other new
>> > TLD/registry Internet Drafts published during 1996, or are named on the
>> > iTLD applicant list that Jon Postel published on behalf of IANA to
>> > iahc-discuss. The purpose of the iTLD Constituency is to create new
>> > registries that will compete at the registry-level with NSI (currently no
>> > competition exists for gTLDs or rTLDs at the registry-level).
>>
>>There is no reason to recognize those.  None at all.  It would serve no 
>>purpose
>>in this process to recognize claims made in an unrelated and unofficial 
>>process.
> 
> IANA, as keepers of the root zone, recommended that new iTLD applications 
> be filed following RFC1591 at "[email-masked]". The 
> InterNIC/Network Solutions domain name template accepted TLD applications 
> at the root, and forwarded those requests to IANA.
> 
> That is an official and formal process.
> 

But IANA is not the keeper of the root zone, Simon.  The USG is.  They
specifically delegated to IANA the ability to manage the ccTLD delegations, but
new gTLDs were specifically outside of their scope.

IANA can recommend you send new top level domain applications to Bill Gates, for
all it would be worth.  They have no validity.

It is not an official process, because it had no sanction from the only
authority who could make it official.  The US Govt.

I've said this over and over again to you, and you still can't provide any
evidence that shows that the USG gave IANA the authority to delegate new gTLDs
without its prior approval.   When you can point me to specific
official document that says that, then we can reexamine this.  Until then you
keep answering with the same old tired arguments that are clearly flawed, and I
keep pointing out why they are flawed.

The circle is broken, Simon.  The IANA did not have this authority.  Ask Sexton
for some clarification, he had an interesting exchange with Jon Postel's
brother on a usenet newsgroup about this very subject recently.

- - --
William X. Walsh <[email-masked]>
http://userfriendly.com/
Fax: 877-860-5412 or +1-559-851-9192
GPG/PGP Key at http://userfriendly.com/wwalsh.gpg
- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.1c (Mandrake Linux)
Comment: Userfriendly Networks http://www.userfriendly.com/

iD8DBQE44UUW8zLmV94Pz+IRAmt7AJwOvWa8q3ejZd4eGGHr87k5L+hfyQCg9aRY
L6O4wXcpuITpuys1OCfWd44=
=0A1k
- -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 16:20:03 -0800
From: "Christopher Ambler" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] About GA membership again......

> But IANA is not the keeper of the root zone, Simon.  The USG is.  They
> specifically delegated to IANA the ability to manage the ccTLD
delegations, but
> new gTLDs were specifically outside of their scope.

How many times do you have to be told that YOU ARE WRONG?

NSF specifically directed TLD applications to IANA when NSI asked them what
to do. NSF then told IANA to take them but not to make changes. IANA then
started the IAHC fiasco and NSF divested themselves of the headache.

> I've said this over and over again to you, and you still can't provide any
> evidence that shows that the USG gave IANA the authority to delegate new
gTLDs
> without its prior approval.

Correct, for what good it does. They said, "take the info, work on the
process,
but don't move without us." So they did all of the above. I'm only concerned
with
the "take the info" part. The rest is history.

- --
Christopher Ambler
[email-masked]

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 16:23:22 -0800 (PST)
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] About GA membership again......

- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 29-Mar-2000 Christopher Ambler wrote:

> How many times do you have to be told that YOU ARE WRONG?

As many times as people continue to make claims that are not backed up by the
facts, and for which there is absolutely no proof.  You can tell me that all
you want, but absent the facts and proof to back it up, its just more hot air
like everything else on this thread.

> Correct, for what good it does. They said, "take the info, work on the
> process,
> but don't move without us." So they did all of the above. I'm only concerned
> with
> the "take the info" part. The rest is history.

The big thing missing here, Chris, is proof.  

NSI asking NSF what to do with these infernal applications, and NSF telling
them to forward them to IANA, does not mean that NSF sanctioned it.  It merely
means that NSF was letting them do their little thing, but was not endorsing it
or granting any official recognition or sanction to it.

Provide proof that IANA had the authority and official santion to create a
process for new gTLDs from the NSF.  Otherwise, this entire issue is over.

- - --
William X. Walsh <[email-masked]>
http://userfriendly.com/
Fax: 877-860-5412 or +1-559-851-9192
GPG/PGP Key at http://userfriendly.com/wwalsh.gpg
- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.1c (Mandrake Linux)
Comment: Userfriendly Networks http://www.userfriendly.com/

iD8DBQE44Uz68zLmV94Pz+IRAi0OAKDxvXh2qpHtVZONCMttnVga0ue0LgCg7pv2
iZSePL4imlCYnz0wJmAGgsw=
=FEZt
- -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 21:57:47 EST
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] csa-international udrp decision

Complainant is a certification organization which refused to certify 
respondent's ozone generator.  Respondent registered versions of 
complainant's trademark and set up webistes criticizing complainant (and 
directing traffic to its own site).  Three member panel rejected respondent's 
free speech defense and held that respondent had no legitimate rights in the 
name.  Full decision at:

http://arbiter.wipo.int/domains/decisions/html/d2000-0071.html
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 22:16:03 EST
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Pull the other one

A company named Grass merged with a company named Telefactor.  Respondent 
registered grasstelefactor.com and grass-telefactor.net.  In the UDRP the 
respondent stated:

". . . it was registered for my son Gilbarco with no knowledge known of the 
company making a claim."

text at:

http://arbiter.wipo.int/domains/decisions/html/d2000-0072.html

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 22:27:59 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] NCDNHC proposed resolution on famous names and new TLDs

Allo assembly members,

  From the Noncom list for you info...

==========================

Subject:
            Re: NCDNHC proposed resolution on famous names and new TLDs
       Date:
            Tue, 28 Mar 2000 19:29:53 -0800
      From:
            Kent Crispin <[email-masked]>
        To:
            [email-masked]
 References:
            1 , 2 , 3 , 4

On Tue, Mar 28, 2000 at 08:24:53PM -0500, James Love wrote:
> I think Kent Crispin's "so what" question is a fair one.  In Cairo, I
> tried to get a sense of what names would be included on such a list.
At
> first, the trademark lawyers were using numbers like "200," which did
> seem to be a cheap price to pay for expanded TLD space.
>
> Then, the number kept growing, until one guy came in and used the
number
> 50,000.

Bear in mind the following:

1) There are millions of names in .com.  Even with 50000 names marked
out,
adding 6 new gTLDs is an *enormous* expansion of the domain space.

2) Far more important than the particular number is the set of criteria
for admission in the list.  If there are indeed 50000 legitimate "famous

marks" by some defensible definition, then 50000 is a true measure of
the scope of the problem.  (The IAHC challenge panel guidelines had
objective criteria for famous marks -- "formally registered as a mark in

more than 75 countries", for example.)

3) The list, as I understand it, is for the dominant (except in wg-c)
definition of "gTLD"s -- that is, TLDs that allow open registration to
all, without any enforced policies on registration.  TLDs that had real
charters would be in a different category -- for example, a TLD (say,
nom) that had a registration requirement that the SLD name had to be a
legal name for the individual registering the SLD could be exempt from
the exclusion list (so macdonald.nom could really go to someone name
macdonald).

>  I think this is a practical and serious issue.  How big would
> the list be?  There is also an issue of the type of protection Pesi
> would get.  Would Pesi get protection from popesitdown.com or
> pesivcoke.comparison?

You mean "pepsi", I believe.  As far as I know, the exclusion list is
for exact string matches.

> And, if the world wants to set a global trademark policy, why doesn't
> the world do this through its existing international institutions like

> WIPO or WTO?   Why does ICANN, hardly a representative or accountable
> group, become a policy maker in this area?

Because domain names bring the problem to the surface, and there is no
other body in the correct place to do anything in anything like the
"internet" time scale.

- --
Kent Crispin                               "Do good, and you'll be
[email-masked]                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain

Regards,

- --
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman INEGroup (Over 95k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number:  972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 23:16:02 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: NCDNHC proposed resolution on famous names and new TLDs

All assembly members,

  Some more on the exchange/discussion on the Noncom list on TLD's
================

Subject:
             Re: NCDNHC proposed resolution on famous names and new TLDs

        Date:
             Tue, 28 Mar 2000 23:13:03 -0800
       From:
             Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
 Organization:
             INEGroup Spokesman
         To:
             "Kevin J. Connolly" <[email-masked]>
         CC:
             [email-masked]
        BCC:
             DOMAIN-POLICY <[email-masked]>
  References:
             1

Kevin and all,

Kevin J. Connolly wrote:

> Milton Mueller <[email-masked]> wrote: (03/28/00 01:05PM)
> >For those of you who don't know, Kevin Connolly is not a member of
NCC and is here
> >merely to support the views of his clients. Fair enough -- we have an
open list,
> >but some disclosure is important for those of you who are not aware
of this.
>
> This is a problem with several layers to it.
> (1)  Prof. Mueller does not know what he's talking about, not that
that has ever
> stopped him in the past.

  Well of course this is totally incorrect.  But that does not mean one
cannot
disagree with Milton from time to time, as any of us can with anyone
else
as well....  So you comment here seems more along the lines of
"Sour-Grapes"
more than anything else...

>
>
> (2)  That I am not a member of the NCC is one of the more bizarre
aspects of the
> ICANN process.  I have applied (twice) for membership.  So far as I
can tell, there is
> no _good_ reason why those applications have been ignored.  So (given
the regime
> rules that are supposed to govern the NCC) this current state of
affairs speaks poorly
> for ICANN, the NCC, and the DNSO.

  I agree with you here.  It is deplorable that anyone that has applied
that has
not been given a written response or rejection notice outlining the
reasons
for your application not being accepted.  It is also deplorable that the
ICANN
Board does not at least look into this as these constituencies are part
of
ICANN itself.  The DNSO being the illegitimate organization that it has
now
become due to some actions by certain individuals and a fraudulent
voting
process is of course not in a position to make or effect any remedy for
this obvious problem.

>
>
> (3)  I am not here lobbying on behalf of any clients.  I have no
clients who have an
> interest (one way or the other) in how these issues are resolved.  I
am here because
> I am an Internet user; I have been a participant in the domain name
wars for as long
> as there have been domain name wars, and I am darned tootin' tired of
the repeated
> attempts of people who _think_ they are Internet insiders to silence
me.

  Even though I often disagree with you positions I do believe that you
alone with
any stakeholder has a right under the White Paper and the MoU to
participate
on an equal footing with any other stakeholder.

>
>
> >
> >Second, his argument is false, and rather obviously so. In general,
the trademark
> >people have less objection to the kind of TLDs Jamie Love is
proposing, which are
> >differentiated, chartered, and non-commercial.
>
> A straw man argument from a master of indirection.
>
> I am not addressing the merits of Mr. Love's proposals.  I am speaking
to the threshold
> issue of mitigating some of the continuing opposition to the addition
of any new TLDs to
> the root.
>
> >What they are afraid of are new,
> >highly generic commercial TLDs such as .biz or .web, which might
foster confusion
> >about where a trademark will be found. It should be noted that in
WG-C, Connolly
> >did NOT support principles calling for differentiated TLDs, despite
explicit
> >statements from trademark and Business/Commercial constituency
members that they
> >would find such new TLDs acceptable.
>
> There is a strong element in the opposition that is fighting against
adding .foowxy321 to
> the root, because there's every reason to believe that coke.foowxy321,
and all the
> rest, will be registered about 15 seconds after the system goes live.

  Well if there is to this particular TLD, it have not read or seen any
such public
statement to support your claim here Kevin.  Can you possibly provide
one?

>
>
> I did not support the "principles" because they would have imposed an
intolerable
> burden on the operators of any proposed new TLD registries.  The
requirement that
> a registry operator vet a proposed delegation before putting it in the
zone file is a sure
> recipe for second-level domain names that will be few in number and
horribly expensive.

  How?  What is your reasoning for this belief?

>
> What's needed is a process for determining, on a principled basis,
that certain
> second level domain names will not be delegated except under very
sharply delimited
> circumstances.  The trick is to make this concession and preserve the
usefulness of
> the new gTLDs at the same time.

  Agreed.  ANd Chartered TLD's as well as non-shared TLD's would achieve
this,
or at least could.

>
>
> >
> >Third, this constituency needs to support what is right, first, and
worry about
> >what is politically expedient second. We do not obtain "clout" in
this process by
> >letting another constituency -- IPCC -- dictate our agenda.
>
> As I have said before, the IAHC tried to do what was right, and it got
nowhere fast.

  This is of course bunk as history show's clearly.

>
> Jon Postel tried to do what was right, and his life and his livelihood
were threatened.
> Anyone who thinks that the non-commercial Internet user is going to
see the promised
> land of new TLDs because they are the right thing to have is living in
a fool's paradise.

  Again I am sure that you are deluded in this belief.

>
> >
> >A few other minor comments/responses below
> >
> >Kevin J. Connolly wrote:
> >
> >> Serious proposals for new GTLDs
> >> have been floating around for years.  They have gone
> >> nowhere fast.
> >
> >That's because the authority structure for resolving the problems was
undefined.
>
> That's the NSI line.  The fact is that the authority structure was
well-known and
> worked just fine until it was destabilized by NSI and its running dog
lackeys.

  The authority structure never existed in fact, but was a times implied
Kevin.
This is also well documented in the IAHC and gTLD-MoU list archives.

>
>
> >We now have ICANN and that is globally recognized as the
institutional mechanism
> >for handling these questions. We are making progress, although
slowly. the issue
> >should be resolved in Japan in July.
> >
> The belief in ICANN's global recognition is overstated.  I do not
suggest holding
> your breath in anticipation of registrations being accepted anytime
soon.  I would
> be pleasantly surprised to be proven wrong.  We need more allies to
get across
> the river.  It does not get us to the promised land if we sit around
and say that we
> will not cooperate with another set of stakeholders.

  ICANN is moving in the opposite direction if it intends to gain
allies.  This much
is becoming more and more evident and widely known with each day.  The
EU
is not trusting of ICANN, and Asia is not beginning to doubt ICANN as
well,
as we all have been made abundantly aware of in recent weeks and months.

>
>
> >There is little danger that no new TLds will be created. The WG has
reported out
> >that 6-10 will be created, the only question now is which ones and
who gets them,
> >and the process for distributing them.
>
> Just because WG-C says that there should be 6-10 new gTLDs does not
mean
> that the battle is over.  WG-C's recommendation is analogous to the
IAHC
> recommendation.  NSI stole the whois database and the root, and
there's no reason
> to believe that if ICANN directs a change in the content of the root
that something
> *interesting* won't result again. It wouldn't be the first time that
NSI's access to covert
> resources, soft money and congressional meddling will have derailed
the whole process.

  I think it is high time congress took a bigger role here anyway.  The
ICANN board
has shown clearly along with the NTIA and WIPO that they wish to dictate
and
almost routinely violate their own legal agreements without impunity.

>
> >
> >> For at least 2000 years past, the best-known method for beating
> >> a strong political opponent is "divide and conquer."
> >
> >Who is the strong political opponent of whom, Kevin? ;-)
>
> Let's see:
>
> Association for Interactive Media
> National Broadcasting Company
> NSI
>
> have been openly hostile to the process.
>
> Disney, CDT, ITAA have been marginally hostile to the process.
>
> Rep. Pickering has made it clear that he will torpedo any attempt to
subject the
> Internet to any measure of international control, and he's the
chairman of the house
> committee on basic science....which controls the NSF.....which
controls the A-root.
>
> This is a "just off the top of my head" listing of the most powerful
opponents of the
> process.
>
> Then we have the Microsoft/RealNames maneuver, which will make the DNS

> obsolete.  They will almost certain join in the process of litigating
new domain names
> to death.
>
> If the suggestion is that I am an opponent of the new TLDs, then the
suggestion
> demonstrates that the suggester is completely out of touch with
reality.  I have been
> a devoted proponent of the privatization and commercialization of the
DNS.  That
> activity has taken money out of my pocket.
> >
> >> The policies which have been proposed to enable the holders of
famous marks
> >> to preemptively exclude their marks from new GTLDs is nothing
> >> less than an attempt to divide the opposition. NSI is never going
> >> to acquiesce in the dilution of the value of its theft
(com/net/org).
> >> The established media have a tremendous economic stake in the
> >> preservation of .com as the place to be.  The trademark community,
> >> on the other hand, is economically-driven.  If we can present an
> >> economical way to satisfy the legitimate interest of famous mark
> >> holders, we can remove a very major stumbling block on the path
> >> to the growth of the TLD namespace.L
> >
> >The political analysis here is incoherent to me. Please elaborate,
and in the
> >process please disclose the economic interests (registrars) with whom
you are
> >affiliated.
>
> (1)  Trademark holders who have their domain names are concerned about
the
> dilution of their marks.
>
> (2)  The "poison list" proposal is intended to give famous mark
holders an economical
> way to protect their rights.  The final step is to convince the mark
holders that they will
> spend less money to protect their marks under the proposed regime than
they will need
> to spend to continue the fight against the TLDs.
>
> (3)  There are no affiliated registrars or other economic interests to
disclose.  The only
famous
> markholder my firm represents (Barnes & Noble) has decided that domain
names != trademarks
> and has migrated its e-commerce site to bn.com.
> >
> >> So long as we continue to insist that there can be no concession
> >> to the holders of famous marks, we will continue to play into the
> >> hands of those who will never go along with the process.
> >
> >The UDRP was a major concesssion and adequately protects any
legitimate interests
> >mark holders have in a domain name.
>
> The UDRP is a post-facto bandaid.  What's needed is a way to keep the
> children from playing with the razor blades in the first place.
>
> >
> >And please refrain from using the pronoun "we." You are not a member
of this
> >constituency.
>
> I will continue to use this pronoun so long as I continue to support
the growth of the
> TLD namespace.  I am, moreover, the owner of a non-commercial domain
name, which
> I use as a family photo album for the edification of my family's
pestilentially numerous
> and widespread membership.  The fact that the NCC has chosen to
exclude me from
> membership (using some criteria which are anything but transparent)
does not
> speak well for the legitimacy of the NCC.  I have not begun to
challenge the legitimacy
> of any ICANN action which depends on the participation of the NCC, but
I believe
> there should be no doubt but that the repeated refusal of the NCC to
process
> my application is indicative of an illegitimate and anti-democratic
agenda on the
> part of at least some of those who have taken control of its
mechanism.
> **********************************************************************

> The information contained in this electronic message is confidential
> and is or may be protected by the attorney-client privilege, the work
> product doctrine, joint defense privileges, trade secret protections,
> and/or other applicable protections from disclosure.  If the reader of

> this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified
> that any use, dissemination, distribution or reproduction of this com-

> munication is strictly prohibited.  If you have received this communi-

> cation in error, please immediately notify us by calling our Help Desk

> at 212-541-2000 ext.3314, or by e-mail to [email-masked]
> **********************************************************************

>
> ---
> You are currently subscribed to ncdnhc-discuss as:
[email-masked]
> To unsubscribe send a blank email to
[email-masked]

Regards,

- --
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman INEGroup (Over 95k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number:  972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 23:17:59 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: NCDNHC proposed resolution on famous names and new TLDs

All assembly members,

  Some more info/discussion ongoing on the noncom list on TLD's
================

Subject:
             Re: NCDNHC proposed resolution on famous names and new TLDs

        Date:
             Tue, 28 Mar 2000 22:54:53 -0800
       From:
             Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
 Organization:
             INEGroup Spokesman
         To:
             "Mark C. Langston" <[email-masked]>
         CC:
             [email-masked]
        BCC:
             DOMAIN-POLICY <[email-masked]>
  References:
             1

Mark and all,

Mark C. Langston wrote:

> Tell me, Kevin -
>
>   At what point are we supposed to stop fighting for what is right and

> just, and start selling out to political expedience?  just because a
> means to an end exists does not make the means correct.  No amount
> of justification can do so, either.

  I agree with you here completely Mark.  It is also so that if the
means
is bad or seriously flawed, the ends can be no better in reality.  Many
people seem to not understand this well.

>
>
> I, for one, will continue to fight for the addition of new TLDs to the

> root, _and_ resist the demands of the IP interests in these areas.
> They already have the DMCA.  They are beginning to get UCITA.  They've

> got WIPO, their own little international treaty organization.  They
> were handed the UDRP.  They've had the letter and spirit of copyright
> and mark law twisted, perverted, subverted, and supervened.

  Again agreed here as well.  New TLD's are certainly needed and
mandated in the White Paper.  It is only the how and which ones
that is really in question here.

>
>
> I refuse to give them one more inch of my personal freedom and my
> property rights in _any_ arena.  I believe this is a just cause for
> which to fight, and I will not give up in the name of expediency.

  Good for you, and I personally won't either.  I know most of our
members will not as well.

>
>
> Personally, I feel that if the IP interests think they hold so much
> sway that they can not only threaten the stability of the Internet,
> but actually effect an instability, they're welcome to try.

  They can only for a time, that's about it.  The stakeholders will and
have
already to a small degree found many ways to route around damage.  ICANN

and WIPO along with the IP interest have thus far supplied an ample
amount of
damage thus far.

>
>
> I've a sneaking suspicion they have more sense than to try something
> like that, however.  The backlash would be more costly to them than
> all their prior efforts combined.
>
> We each choose where we draw our lines.  I draw mine here.

  Here Here!

>
>
> --
> Mark C. Langston
> [email-masked]
> Systems & Network Admin
> San Jose, CA
>
> ---
> You are currently subscribed to ncdnhc-discuss as:
[email-masked]
> To unsubscribe send a blank email to
[email-masked]

Regards,

- --
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman INEGroup (Over 95k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number:  972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 22:37:48 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] NCDNHC proposed resolution on famous names and new TLDs

All assembly members,

  Some more info/ideas on new TLD's from the Noncom list...
==================

Subject:
             Re: NCDNHC proposed resolution on famous names and new TLDs

        Date:
             Tue, 28 Mar 2000 20:24:53 -0500
       From:
             James Love <[email-masked]>
 Organization:
             http://www.cptech.org
         To:
             Kent Crispin <[email-masked]>
         CC:
             [email-masked]
  References:
             1 , 2 , 3

I think Kent Crispin's "so what" question is a fair one.  In Cairo, I
tried to get a sense of what names would be included on such a list.  At

first, the trademark lawyers were using numbers like "200," which did
seem to be a cheap price to pay for expanded TLD space.

Then, the number kept growing, until one guy came in and used the number

50,000.   I think this is a practical and serious issue.  How big would
the list be?  There is also an issue of the type of protection Pesi
would get.  Would Pesi get protection from popesitdown.com or
pesivcoke.comparison?

And, if the world wants to set a global trademark policy, why doesn't
the world do this through its existing international institutions like
WIPO or WTO?   Why does ICANN, hardly a representative or accountable
group, become a policy maker in this area?

 Jamie

Kent Crispin wrote:
>
> On Tue, Mar 28, 2000 at 03:50:53PM -0500, James Love wrote:
> >     Before the NCDNHC's decides to compromise, it might be a good
idea
> > to decide if it has a consensus on the merits of the issue.
>
> On the merits, a social utility argument: I assume that, though the
> definition is fuzzy, famous marks that are not common words really do
> exist (eg kodak, pepsi), and that the owners of those marks are
required
> to defend them, at their own expense, or lose them or otherwise suffer

> economic harm.  That is, a registration of kodak.blat by some other
> party does constitute an authentic problem for the company -- at the
> very least, kodak is required to investigate, which costs money.
Thus,
> a domain speculator can acquire that domain name, and offer to sell it

> at an amount somewhat less than the average cost of a UDRP proceeding.

> For example, I could get kodak.blat and offer to sell it to kodak for
> $500, which is very much less than what kodak would have to pay to go
> through the UDRP.  Thus, economically, kodak's hands are tied -- if
the
> number of gTLDs is large, then domain speculators can make a very good

> living by registering names that are trademarks and reselling them to
TM
> holders at a slight markup -- say 10 times the registration fee.  As
> long as that markup is significantly below the cost of dispute
> resolution, the TM holder's hands are tied by economic reality.
>
> Owners of intellectual property understandably don't want to go
through
> this gratuitious expense.  It is just a parasitic transfer of wealth
> from the TM owner to the speculator, with no social value -- the
> creation of the gTLD is a pure expense for the TM owner, and it is
fair
> to say that the TLD is being created at the expense of the TM owners.
>
> I see the prevention of parasitic money transfers as a positive good.
>
> What is the negative?  The negative is that people won't be able to
use
> the reserved names for other uses.  From my perspective this is a big
> so what.  They can come up with other names.  Of course, a famous
marks
> list could be abused, and that is an issue.  But the idea in general
> seems quite reasonable.
>
> --
> Kent Crispin                               "Do good, and you'll be
> [email-masked]                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain
>
> ---
> You are currently subscribed to ncdnhc-discuss as: [email-masked]
> To unsubscribe send a blank email to
[email-masked]

- --
=======================================================
James Love, Director           | http://www.cptech.org
Consumer Project on Technology | mailto:[email-masked]
P.O. Box 19367                 | voice: 1.202.387.8030
Washington, DC 20036           | fax:   1.202.234.5176
=======================================================

Regards,

- --
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman INEGroup (Over 95k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number:  972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #34
***********************