[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: questions for candidates
- To: icann-europe@fitug.de
- Subject: Re: questions for candidates
- From: Marc Lehmann <pcg@goof.com>
- Date: Sun, 13 Aug 2000 16:57:40 +0200
- Comment: This message comes from the icann-europe mailing list.
- In-Reply-To: <003401c00534$2d75b160$0b0aa8c0@f-gner>; from Andreas.Fuegner@lizenz.com on Sun, Aug 13, 2000 at 04:38:42PM +0200
- Mail-Followup-To: icann-europe@fitug.de
- References: <003401c00534$2d75b160$0b0aa8c0@f-gner>
- Sender: owner-icann-europe@fitug.de
On Sun, Aug 13, 2000 at 04:38:42PM +0200, Andreas Fügner <Andreas.Fuegner@lizenz.com> wrote:
> ICANN decided to create new TLDs. I think the registration for new
> TLDs should follow the established procedure of "First come - First
> served". There are many companies where one can register.
ICANN so far decided to add new TLDs in a slow process, one at a time. "First
come - First serverd" does IMHO not apply to such a model, where introduction
of new TLD's is a long process.
Of course, ICANN can change this, but adding new TLD's on a rush is
serving nobody :(
> re: trademark - domain conflicts
> I support the idea of "first come - first served". With trademark
> ownership comes the duty to protect it.
"Give me a gun" ;) How does one defend one's domain? The only place where
this can happen is a national court, and national courts decide different
in different countries.
At the moment, I can see no obvious better policy than FCFS (except
sharing, which is another matter), the problem I see with it is that it's
not usable in practise, except maybe putting registries physically under
different law, finally leading to splitted networks.
One might try thinking about a way of decising "usage" of a domain - for
example, most registries now require "connected domains", which just means
that some "speculant" puts up a web page with "soon here will be the new
xxx" or even: "if you are interested in buying this domain...".
Maybe, juts maybe it would be more worthwhile to think about was to
decide wether a domain is actually *in use* (and criteria like working
nameservers, at leats one a record, working webpage (beware!) all fail,
obviously).
> protection mechanisms" in the real worldand they are unnecessary on
> the internet.
Maybe. That doesn't stop courts from applying trademark laws, however. The
internet cannot be a right-free area, as much as people might want that.
There is no such thing as a truly international trademark law, so the
first step would be to create such a beast.
--
-----==- |
----==-- _ |
---==---(_)__ __ ____ __ Marc Lehmann +--
--==---/ / _ \/ // /\ \/ / pcg@opengroup.org |e|
-=====/_/_//_/\_,_/ /_/\_\ XX11-RIPE --+
The choice of a GNU generation |
|