[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [ICANN-EU] Re: questions for candidates (sent again to the list)

On Sun, Aug 13, 2000 at 06:20:01PM +0200, Jefsey Morfin <jefsey@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
> I fully agree with this. Actually the Trade Mark issue is quite absurd
> since nobody came with a final description of a domain name, both

I think the trademark issue *is* absurd with respect to domain names, but my
reasons are likely different.

However, lack of a definition does not mean national law might not
apply to a dns name like "i.hate.microsoft.so.much.plan9.de", (which is
completely outside ICANN issues of course), or even TLD's, if TLD's ever
get handed out freely.

> There is a class for online services. Only the one having registered
> in every country a trade mark for that class can seriously rise a
> claim.

Why do you think so? One way of viewing is that (given the lack of internet
law), the contents of an ip packet are subject to national law depending on
the wire they are getting send over, or the device they are routed through.

Registries can be forced through law to shut down domains.

> trade mark in regard of future events like the internet. This is not
> the problem of the internet and not to be at the disadvantage of
> those who made their job correctly.

Despite the trademark issue, there simply has to be a conflict resolution
strategy. FCFS is hardly fair. So is applying trademark law (the latter is
not a full conflict resolution strategy, of course).

And unfortunately, this strategy must be weak enough that it is practical
to use in most countries.

      -----==-                                             |
      ----==-- _                                           |
      ---==---(_)__  __ ____  __       Marc Lehmann      +--
      --==---/ / _ \/ // /\ \/ /       pcg@opengroup.org |e|
      -=====/_/_//_/\_,_/ /_/\_\       XX11-RIPE         --+
    The choice of a GNU generation                       |