Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #360
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST            Sunday, April 8 2001            Volume 01 : Number 360

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

Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2001 13:09:07 -0700
From: "Tim Langdell, PhD" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] ICANN benefits

Hi Pat

"Freedom" -- yes, a good local example of what I mean

Tim

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
To: "Tim Langdell, PhD" <[email-masked]>
Cc: "[GA]" <[email-masked]>
Sent: Saturday, April 07, 2001 11:50 AM
Subject: Re: [ga] ICANN benefits

> Hi Tim
>
> Good analysis.  Thank you.  One quick comment:
>
> > And it is not inconceivable that two identical marks could both achieve
> > famous name status for two quite distinct markets within the same
> > country/territory.
>
> In Australia, nobody would associate "Freedom Furniture" with "Freedom
Tampons"
> but everybody would easily recognise the two very well lnown brands.
>
> I don't know whether they both have exactly the same mark "Freedom" but
clearly
> they could have.  Both would be entitled to claim the domain name.
>
> Best regards
> Patrick
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

- --
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: Sat, 7 Apr 2001 13:50:08 -0700
From: "Tim Langdell, PhD" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] ICANN benefits

Peter.

Thank you. I try to post stimulating messages ... and hope to provoke more
meaningful focused discussion.

Tim

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter de Blanc" <[email-masked]>
To: "Tim Langdell, PhD" <[email-masked]>; "Sandy Harris"
<[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Saturday, April 07, 2001 12:02 PM
Subject: RE: [ga] ICANN benefits

> Tim, that is one of the most rational 'posts' i have seen on this list in
a
> long time.
>
> to all: Let us use Tim's post as a model of what this list could be:
> substantive, objective, and thoughtful.
>
> Thank you
>
> Peter de Blanc
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Tim
> Langdell, PhD
> Sent: Saturday, April 07, 2001 1:03 PM
> To: Sandy Harris; [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [ga] ICANN benefits
>
>
> Sandy
>
> I heartily concur. Having been involved in numerous trade mark matters
over
> the last 20 years, the aspects that remains relatively "sane" in
> international trade mark law are (a) it IS international -- that is,
having
> a US trademark does not give you automatic rights in the UK, or Germany or
> Japan or etc, or vice versa, and (b) it protects the use of the same or
very
> similar marks as long as they use is distinct and consumers will not get
> confused as to the true source and ownership of the goods or services
> associated with  the mark.
>
> The key problem with applying trade mark law unthinkingly to the Internet
as
> it stands at this moment in time, is that the vast majority of worldwide
> commerce is under the ".com" domain. And where you have only one TLD (.net
> has never gained the same favor) then of course you can only have one
owner
> of any given name: your example using "Sun" is a good one. While there can
> only be one "sun.com" there are probably tens if not hundreds of entirely
> legitimate owners of a trademark in the US alone of either the word "sun"
or
> some variant on it. Considering the world market -- which the Internet is,
> we cannot and must not ignore that -- then the number of rightful owners
of
> the mark "sun" probably spreads to thousands. More, in the case where an
> even more commonly used mark is used as an example (please, no one respond
> that my figures are incorrect -- this is "for example" only and I am not
> meaning to say I have researched the trade mark "sun" per se in all
> countries world wide -- that said entering the search term "sun" in just
the
> USPTO TM database gives 6,820 "hits").
>
> Even an attempt to rely on "famous names" (an old fall back in the IP
world)
> cannot work: you cannot say that the most famous name holder for a given
> trade mark name is the one who should have the right to a given
"TMname.com"
> as what is "famous" varies from country to country/territory to territory.
> And it is not inconceivable that two identical marks could both achieve
> famous name status for two quite distinct markets within the same
> country/territory.
>
> Also, blind application of existing trademark registrations alone to
> deciding who has a right to a given domain name does not allow for the
quite
> reasonable claim that one can build a worldwide commercial entity based
> solely on the web (e.g. Amazon.com) which then can be argued to have
> legitimate claim to a trademark (arguably "amazon.com" rather than purely
> "Amazon" -- but I wont go deeper on that here .. ) even if there is a
strong
> rights holder in the same name (here "amazon") in any given territory in
the
> world. Rights are established (and preserved) through USE in most
trademark
> law worldwide: you do not have to register your mark to claim rights to
> protect it or to claim ownership of it. Registration per se does NOT
confer
> ownership of a mark in any absolute sense (that is why most worldwide TM
> registries have a process such as a right to petition to cancel, etc).
>
> What we have right now is the equivalent of a single street on which
> international commerce is asked to situate (yes I know there are country
> codes -- but the dominance of ".com" cannot be denied). And applying the
> rule that no two store fronts on this one street can have the same name
even
> if they have established ownership rights in that name elsewhere, is
clearly
> a broken model.
>
> In sum, no matter what is done using the UDRP or by WIPO or ICANN or etc
is
> likely to be subject to reasonable criticism. So long as we have just
".com"
> dominant, then they are in a no-win situation resolving name disputes in
> many if not all cases.
>
> Yes, I know that .biz is about to happen, but that is clearly not in and
of
> itself a solution as it will marginally lessen the current problem but
come
> no where close to curing it. Indeed, it is arguable that the introduction
of
> just one major new alternate to .com will worsen the situation, not help
it
> (I can go into that later if you wish ...)
>
> In all, I can see no stronger argument for the need for more TLDs to
enable
> a more rational use of marks in worldwide Intent commerce: the need for
more
> usable English language (roman.roman) names, and the need for more
> multilingual names. Ultimately, Trademark owners should welcome new TLDs
not
> fear them.
>
> Tim
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Sandy Harris" <[email-masked]>
> To: <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Friday, April 06, 2001 9:07 PM
> Subject: Re: [ga] ICANN benefits
>
>
> > Dave Crocker wrote:
> >
> > > The law in most countries "institutionalizes trademark favortism".  It
> has
> > > done that rather longer than ICANN has been around...
> >
> > However, it also protects multiple uses of a trademark. Sun
Microsystems,
> > Sun Oil, the Sun and Surf Resort, ... and provides procedural safeguards
> > for the rights of the alleged violator.
> >
> > > If you mean that the UDRP provides ADDITIONAL benefits to trademark
> > > holders, well, that becomes a finer point of debate.
> >
> > It isn't entirely clear to me what the URDP was designed to accomplish,
> but
> > it seems cleat that in practice at least some decisions (bodacioustatas
> leaps
> > to mind) gave benefits to trademark owners that go way beyong anything
> they'd
> > be legally entitled to in any juritiction I know of.
> >
> > > As has been noted frequently, the UDRP needs enhancement.  But let's
not
> > > attribute more precedent to it or ICANN than is valid.
> >
> > Specifically, it needs better protection for the domain holders who are
> > attacked using it.
> > --
> > 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
> >
> >
>
> --
> 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
>
>

- --
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: Sat, 07 Apr 2001 14:30:24 -0700
From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] percentages and numbers of cases

At 01:13 PM 4/7/2001, Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law wrote:
>Of course very few cases have been taken to court.  The losers who have
>the good cases are frequently people without money and without lawyers.
>That's one reason they lost when they should have won.

So far, analyses of the UDRP process have shown very few questionable outcomes.

Now you say "frequently" about something that hints of inequity.

Since your assessment has not been publicly supported, yet, please supply 
your basis for saying "frequently".

d/

- ----------
Dave Crocker   <mailto:[email-masked]>
Brandenburg InternetWorking   <http://www.brandenburg.com>
tel: +1.408.246.8253;   fax: +1.408.273.6464

- --
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: Sat, 07 Apr 2001 23:26:55 +0200
From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] percentages and numbers of cases

At 16:13 07.04.2001 -0400, Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law wrote:
>Of course very few cases have been taken to court.  The losers who have
>the good cases are frequently people without money and without lawyers.
>That's one reason they lost when they should have won.

another strong tendency is that those who choose not to respond to a 
challenge to a domain lose their domain more often than those who respond.

in the case of guinness-really-sucks.com, the defendant didn't bother to 
reply (having registered the domain in a fit of pique after the UDRP had 
taken guiness and/or guinnes away from him, if I remember the details 
right, I suppose he saw no reason to bother....)

- --
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: Sat, 7 Apr 2001 15:01:57 -0700 
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] percentages and numbers of cases

> From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Saturday, April 07, 2001 2:27 PM
> 
> At 16:13 07.04.2001 -0400, Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School 
> of Law wrote:
> >Of course very few cases have been taken to court.  The 
> losers who have
> >the good cases are frequently people without money and 
> without lawyers.
> >That's one reason they lost when they should have won.
> 
> another strong tendency is that those who choose not to respond to a 
> challenge to a domain lose their domain more often than those 
> who respond.
> 
> in the case of guinness-really-sucks.com, the defendant 
> didn't bother to 
> reply (having registered the domain in a fit of pique after 
> the UDRP had 
> taken guiness and/or guinnes away from him, if I remember the details 
> right, I suppose he saw no reason to bother....)

That is the other problem with those "bad" decisions. They destroy the
credibility of the system.
- --
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: Sat, 07 Apr 2001 15:02:43 -0700
From: "Michael F. McNulty" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] percentages and numbers of cases

There are also defendants who trademark owners might _think of_
as "losers" who have won under the UDRP, representing themselves.
And the same cases, had they been brought in court (any court),
would almost certainly have gone the other way, since a professional
jurist would not have tolerated the contempt and/or disinterest that those
defendants have had for the rules of engagement.  I hesitate
to provide examples, having been on the losing side.  ;)
Michael McNulty

"Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" wrote:

> Of course very few cases have been taken to court.  The losers who have
> the good cases are frequently people without money and without lawyers.
> That's one reason they lost when they should have won.
>
> On Sat, 7 Apr 2001, Cade,Marilyn S - LGA wrote:
>
> > I'm not aware of that figure of overturn of trademark cases under the UDRP.
> > But, then, maybe a lot of cases haven't been taken to court, after a UDRP
> > decision?  Sometimes percentages can appear very significant, if one doesn't
> > know the number of cases.  So, it could be factual, but representative of a
> > small number of cases pursued. Could that be the situation?
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Patrick Greenwell [mailto:[email-masked]]
> > Sent: Saturday, April 07, 2001 11:39 AM
> > To: Eric Dierker
> > Cc: Dave Crocker; [email-masked]
> > Subject: Re: [ga] ICANN benefits
> >
> >
> > On Fri, 6 Apr 2001, Eric Dierker wrote:
> >
> > > Anyone had better take that position seeing how we are looking at about
> > %80
> > > overturn ratio in federal courts upon WIPO type decisions.
> >
> > Hi Eric,
> >
> > I believe others besides myself would be interested in the cases behind
> > the 80% figure. Could you please provide some references? It would be much
> > appreciated.
> >
> >
> > /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
> > /\
> >                                Patrick Greenwell
> >                        Earth is a single point of failure.
> > \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
> > \/
> >
> > --
> > 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
> > --
> > This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> > Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> > ("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
> > Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> >
> >
>
> --
>                 Please visit http://www.icannwatch.org
> A. Michael Froomkin   |    Professor of Law    |   [email-masked]
> U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA
> +1 (305) 284-4285  |  +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax)  |  http://www.law.tm
>                        -->It's warm here.<--
>
> --
> 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

- --
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: Sun, 08 Apr 2001 00:15:24 +0200
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] percentages and numbers of cases

Michael,
>
>Of course very few cases have been taken to court.  The losers who have
>the good cases are frequently people without money and without lawyers.

Isn't that one of the good points in the UDRP?
I mean, the UDRP gives the possibility to deal with the case without the 
need to invest a lot of money.

Of course, there have been *bad* decisions, but the questions are (supposing 
to be able to identify the *bad* decisions):
- - how many bad decisions (in percentage), and what are the corresponding 
values for regular courts
- - is there inconsistency in the decisions (i.e. no clear common policy), and 
to which extent (%, again)
- - how can we address this (I guess Sandy Harris mentioned this earlier 
tonight)

I have seen a lot of "UDRP sucks", "No, it doesn't", but maybe the focus is 
"what sucks, and how can it be changed".

Back to the original question, somebody knows how many UDRP decisions have 
been overturned by normal courts?

Regards
Roberto

_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

- --
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: Sat, 7 Apr 2001 18:40:57 -0400
From: "JandL" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] ICANN benefits

> "Tim Langdell, PhD" wrote:
> 
> > The key problem with applying trade mark law unthinkingly to the
> > Internet as it stands at this moment in time, is that the vast
> > majority of worldwide commerce is under the ".com" domain. And where
> > you have only one TLD (.net has never gained the same favor) then of
> > course you can only have one owner of any given name: your example
> > using "Sun" is a good one. While there can only be one "sun.com"
> > there are probably tens if not hundreds of entirely legitimate
> > owners of a trademark in the US alone of either the word "sun" or
> > some variant on it. Considering the world market -- which the
> > Internet is, we cannot and must not ignore that -- then the number
> > of rightful owners of the mark "sun" probably spreads to thousands.
> > More, in the case where an even more commonly used mark is used as
> > an example (please, no one respond that my figures are incorrect --
> > this is "for example" only and I am not meaning to say I have
> > researched the trade mark "sun" per se in all countries world wide
> > -- that said entering the search term "sun" in just the USPTO TM
> > database gives 6,820 "hits").
> 
> Of course there are (partial?) solutions to these problems that do not
> involve UDRP or any other action involving registries or registrars
> and their customers, the Second Level Domain holders.
> 
> ICANN could create a .mark TLD with a trademarks-only charter. Let
> WIPO administer it or choose and instruct a contractor to do so.
> 
> WIPO could create .mark.wipo.org, or anyone could register marks.net
> or some such name. Once they've done that, they can assign subdomains
> as they please.
> 
> Anyone could create a search engine, or various companies could
> enhance their existing ones, to use a trademarks database.
> 
> Given sufficient buy-in from trademark holders and good marketing,
> either a web site or a search engine could quickly become well known,
> the site everyone goes to for info on trademarked products. They might
> even make a bundle. 

It has been suggested by many that a TLD for TM holders would 
work.  However, there still remains the multiple use of a mark vs the 
unique naming in a TLD.  There would have to be at least as many 
TLDs as classes of goods and services.

Another thing that would help is to amend the Lanham Act in the 
US, absolving TM holders from having to police marks in the domain 
name system.  If they are not obligated to do so, there is less need 
for protection.  In addition, if there were literally hundreds of TLDs 
it would further reduce the mania for policing.  It is ludicrous to 
think that a TM holder should have a de facto right to all instances 
of that mark in all TLDs, whether they are gTLDs or chartered.

The legal system is still the only method for potentially fair 
adjudication of disputes.

IMO, the only way a UDRP could be fair would be to open it to all 
domain name holders, not have arbitrators associated with just the 
IP industry and make the choice of arbitrator mutual.  The system 
was designed by the IP industry for the IP industry to the detriment 
of the public at large.  It should either be totally reformed or 
scrapped.

Leah

- -- This message was passed to you via the
> [email-masked] list. Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message). Archives at
> http://www.dnso.org/archives.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: Sat, 7 Apr 2001 17:19:00 -0500
From: Andy Gardner <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] percentages and numbers of cases

At 11:26 pm +0200 4/7/01, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
>in the case of guinness-really-sucks.com, the defendant didn't bother to
>reply (having registered the domain in a fit of pique after the UDRP had
>taken guiness and/or guinnes away from him, if I remember the details
>right, I suppose he saw no reason to bother....)

My next domain purchase would have been

watch-guiness-steal-this-fair-use-name-with-help-from-wipo.com

- -- 
Andrew P. Gardner
barcelona.com stolen, stmoritz.com stays. What's uniform about the UDRP?
We could ask ICANN to send WIPO a clue, but do they have any to spare?
Get active: http://www.domain-owners.org http://www.tldlobby.com
- --
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: Sun, 8 Apr 2001 00:38:52 +0200 (CEST)
From: Marc Schneiders <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] percentages and numbers of cases

On Sat, 7 Apr 2001, at 23:26 [=GMT+0200], Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:

> At 16:13 07.04.2001 -0400, Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law wrote:
> >Of course very few cases have been taken to court.  The losers who have
> >the good cases are frequently people without money and without lawyers.
> >That's one reason they lost when they should have won.
> 
> another strong tendency is that those who choose not to respond to a 
> challenge to a domain lose their domain more often than those who respond.
> 
> in the case of guinness-really-sucks.com, the defendant didn't bother to 
> reply (having registered the domain in a fit of pique after the UDRP had 
> taken guiness and/or guinnes away from him, if I remember the details 
> right, I suppose he saw no reason to bother....)

And there are reports of cases, where the respondent received the
complaint so late, that he could not respond in time, despite correct
whois details, so without any fault on his part. People are also away
for some days or a week. Bad luck then under the UDRP.

- -- 
[email-masked]
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -  
 http://www.ORG-domain-name-owners-lobby-against-ICANNs-sellout-to-VeriSign.ORG
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

- --
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: Sat, 7 Apr 2001 19:12:12 -0400
From: "babybows.com" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] gTLD Constituency

Milton Mueller wrote:
(http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc05/msg00048.html)

I have a question about the gTLD constituency.

It seems to me that there are now at least 25 recognized generic TLD
operators or applicants. 7 of them were authorized to get new contracts back
in November. Of the remaining dozen or so, ICANN Staff has repeatedly said
that their applications are not rejected but are basically "on hold"
awaiting the results of the so-called "proof of concept."

Why are these organizations not included in the gTLD constituency?

Are these registries and registry applicants not deserving of representation
in the DNSO? This is particularly difficult to understand for the 7 new
registries. Why has the DNSO not quickly taken measures to create a REAL
gTLD constituency?
- -----------------

Milton has raised a very good question.  Patrick Corliss has also noted, "In
Australia, Connect.com is both a Registry and a Registrar for .net.au."
Others assuredly will bring forward additional examples of other gTLD
registries.  As the gTLD Constituency already exists, I would think that now
is the time for those with rights to participation to assert those rights.

What are you waiting for?

- --
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: Sat, 7 Apr 2001 17:30:17 -0700
From: Kent Crispin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] ICANN benefits

On Sat, Apr 07, 2001 at 06:40:57PM -0400, JandL wrote:
> > ICANN could create a .mark TLD with a trademarks-only charter. Let
> > WIPO administer it or choose and instruct a contractor to do so.
> > 
> > WIPO could create .mark.wipo.org, or anyone could register marks.net
> > or some such name. Once they've done that, they can assign subdomains
> > as they please.
> > 
> > Anyone could create a search engine, or various companies could
> > enhance their existing ones, to use a trademarks database.
[...]
> It has been suggested by many that a TLD for TM holders would 
> work.  However, there still remains the multiple use of a mark vs the 
> unique naming in a TLD.  There would have to be at least as many 
> TLDs as classes of goods and services.
> 
> Another thing that would help is to amend the Lanham Act in the 
> US, absolving TM holders from having to police marks in the domain 
> name system.

It's doubtful that this would help -- the Lanham act isn't the only 
reason that TM holders protect their TMs.  And it is even more doubtful 
that it could ever happen to begin with.

But the bottom line is that I think it is fairly clear that the force
driving TM holders in all this is something quite different than a
simple desire to "police their trademarks". 

> If they are not obligated to do so, there is less need 
> for protection.  In addition, if there were literally hundreds of TLDs 
> it would further reduce the mania for policing.

Highly unlikely.  Note that in fact there already are hundreds of TLDs.

But more interesting: at least one large TM owner claims to have done an
in-depth study of this, and concludes that it will always be the case
that there will be one (or a *very* few) dominant TLDs that will get all
the demand.  NSI clearly believes this; and interestingly enough, the
market projections revealed in the gTLD application process are also
surprisingly pessimistic about the ability of the the new TLDs to gain
market share.

TM owners, like everyone, try to get their names in .com because that is
*the* popular TLD.  This is a self-reinforcing cycle, and there doesn't
seem any obvious end to it.  However, it is irrational, and basically a 
fad.  So it will probably end someday.

Depending on the ethics of the company, the resources it is willing to
devote, the circumstances, the desireability of the name, the timing,
luck, and other things, they may succeed in getting the name they want. 
By and large, large companies have far more resources to throw at the
problem than small entities, and they will win more often.  This is
generally true; it's not restricted to domain names.

So, neither "hundreds of new names" or "special purpose names for TM
owners" or "special search engines" are going to make any significant
difference in what happens in .com -- .com and maybe a very few other
TLDs are always going to be biased towards large companies and TM
owners.

The good news is that it is highly likely that TM owners will for the 
most part ignore small TLDs.

> It is ludicrous to 
> think that a TM holder should have a de facto right to all instances 
> of that mark in all TLDs, whether they are gTLDs or chartered.

That's a ludicrous strawman.  No TM owner I know thinks that, and, in
fact, TM owners have been among the biggest supporters of chartered
TLDs. 

> The legal system is still the only method for potentially fair 
> adjudication of disputes.

Sorry, that's nonsense.  The legal system is heavily biased towards the
rich.

- -- 
Kent Crispin                               "Be good, and you will be
[email-masked]                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain
- --
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: Sat, 7 Apr 2001 21:30:22 -0400 
From: "Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] gTLD Constituency

Actually, given that ICANN is a "bottoms up" organization, how about the GA
identifying this issue, describing where there are already "generics"
operationally, at least, and asking for an analysis of the process for
additions to the constituency.

I must confess that I don't know whether the existing operational
generics/cc's want to be in the constituency. Should they be asked first?
They may prefer to stay in the ccTLD constituency.  Some are ga members, I'm
sure. I don't want to appear to prejudge their preferences. 

But for the incoming genericTLDs (new 7) they definitely belong in the
constituency, once contractually in place.

... looks like timing to me... on that front.

- -----Original Message-----
From: babybows.com [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Saturday, April 07, 2001 7:12 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] gTLD Constituency

Milton Mueller wrote:
(http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc05/msg00048.html)

I have a question about the gTLD constituency.

It seems to me that there are now at least 25 recognized generic TLD
operators or applicants. 7 of them were authorized to get new contracts back
in November. Of the remaining dozen or so, ICANN Staff has repeatedly said
that their applications are not rejected but are basically "on hold"
awaiting the results of the so-called "proof of concept."

Why are these organizations not included in the gTLD constituency?

Are these registries and registry applicants not deserving of representation
in the DNSO? This is particularly difficult to understand for the 7 new
registries. Why has the DNSO not quickly taken measures to create a REAL
gTLD constituency?
- -----------------

Milton has raised a very good question.  Patrick Corliss has also noted, "In
Australia, Connect.com is both a Registry and a Registrar for .net.au."
Others assuredly will bring forward additional examples of other gTLD
registries.  As the gTLD Constituency already exists, I would think that now
is the time for those with rights to participation to assert those rights.

What are you waiting for?

- --
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
- --
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: Sat, 07 Apr 2001 19:42:12 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] ICANN benefits

I am sorry for the long delay in responding but I had the pleasure of attending a
conference in San Farnsisco on Internet edcuation and marketing, and just got
back.

The eighty is incorrect the way I wrote it, 80% of the cases taken to court reach
a different result.  Keep in mind this is  considereing a myriad of different
factors, such as a change where money is awarded, further declaratory relief is
added, the decision to transfer a name is nullified, and vice versa.  I did not
create a source document from the many sources I used to come to this conclusion.
However your interest has prompted me to do so  and I will compile some for in the
future, as I am sure the info would be helpful, while we at the GA make the
rewriting and amending a worthy aspiration.  After all we were not properly
consulted, and I should say you, since I was merely a twinkle in this lists eye at
the time, for the first UDRP.

Keep in mind this point was not for or against either side, but in recognition of
the expertise of US Fed. Courts and in fact I am quite certain most changes are in
favor of an IP type plaintiff.  Because they are the ones who can afford to hire
the best or only lawyers, and other factors. And this fact clearly weighs in favor
of "a" UDRP and its' amendments. Or an association of attorneys who will handle it
pro bono for holders, or the awarding of attorney fees for a holder that wins, or
verisign has to contribute to supply those lawyers for holders.

What I was trying to point out is that the UDRP and the WHOIS situation is heavily
weighted in favor of the IP groups.  They, and you could applaud them for this,
had undue influence on the formulation of both of these policies, and I believe
both policies are in serious violation of the agreement that ICANN has with the
DoC.

Sincerely

Patrick Greenwell wrote:

> On Fri, 6 Apr 2001, Eric Dierker wrote:
>
> > Anyone had better take that position seeing how we are looking at about %80
> > overturn ratio in federal courts upon WIPO type decisions.
>
> Hi Eric,
>
> I believe others besides myself would be interested in the cases behind
> the 80% figure. Could you please provide some references? It would be much
> appreciated.
>
> /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
>                                Patrick Greenwell
>                        Earth is a single point of failure.
> \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

- --
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: Sat, 07 Apr 2001 20:51:15 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: Education and Outreach, An edu.out.list

Alright here we have it, the last straw. We must establish a list which you
persons of prominance and ICANN history will mentor.  Where someone, even
people of history can pose a question and get an answer.  there are enough
archives where simply referring to them will help.  We must establish
guidelines but I believe in such a setting the good will rise to the top.

think of the beauty and the ease; I post what do all these initials stand for
and Eric replies here is the link you moron, no leave out the moron part!!
Who is this Postal guy and and what is an RFC?  and Danny replies with a simple
explanation and some locators. (of course Danny is a newbie too so we may some
problem ;>) Maybe we could help make a system to avoid these two pifalls of my
imaginary examples.

We set up a system for categorizing the the reply headers for ease of research

And we begin to build a place where we transfer the knowledge of you fine folks
to us next gen newbies.

(The examples were meant to be fun and lighthearted and this poster takes no
responsibility for any offense taken thereby, although I know Danny will take
none)

Roeland Meyer wrote:

> > From: Sandy Harris [mailto:[email-masked]]
> > Sent: Saturday, April 07, 2001 1:12 PM
>
> > ICANN could create a .mark TLD with a trademarks-only
> > charter. Let WIPO
> > administer it or choose and instruct a contractor to do so.
> >
> > WIPO could create .mark.wipo.org, or anyone could register
> > marks.net or
> > some such name. Once they've done that, they can assign subdomains as
> > they please.
>
> We've already covered this possibility in WG-B. See the archives for why it
> won't work.
> --
> 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

- --
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: Sat, 7 Apr 2001 22:43:37 -0700 
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] RE: Education and Outreach, An edu.out.list

> We set up a system for categorizing the the reply headers for 
> ease of research

... it's called a Knowledge Search and Recommendation engine. ...

> And we begin to build a place where we transfer the knowledge 
> of you fine folks to us next-gen newbies.

Actually, I think that it's a great idea. Hiwever, the software ain't cheap
and those of us tha know how to build one can't afford the time for pro
bono.
- --
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 #360
************************