[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[discuss] Re: [IFWP] Re: "thin" registries
- To: DNSO <email@example.com>
- Subject: [discuss] Re: [IFWP] Re: "thin" registries
- From: Jeff Williams <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Sat, 26 Jun 1999 17:28:37 +0100
- Organization: INEG. Inc. (Spokesman INEGroup)
- References: <email@example.com> <000201bec011$6392e1a0$85f526cf@AVCLaptop.interport.net> <Pine.BSF.3.96.990626092119.14430Afirstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com>
- Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org
Bill and all,
I certainly agree with your views on the "First-come-first-serve"
model that has been in effect with respect to registering DN's.
IMHO, we really have come full circle back to that being the only
fair and reasonable process for the registration of DN's.
The problem with this "First-come-first-serve" model, is the big
TM interests don't like it and feel that it circumvents TM law
in cyberspace. I say to that "Nonsense", if you guys didn't
initially believe that the Internet and the DNS in particular
was going to survive, which most of the big TM interests
didn't BTW, than you just got out smarted from a business
perspective. This is where the mess started getting nasty...
The rest as the say, is now history, and we are still building
on that history today...
Bill Lovell wrote:
> At 06:34 PM 6/26/99 -0400, you wrote:
> >It seems odd to me that architecture would have the consumer--the would-be
> >domain name holder--shop registrars for domain name dispute policies and
> >whois data representation. After all, I'd imagine that the point of a
> >dispute policy is to balance the interests of the holder and other later
> >claimants both substantively and procedurally. Suppose in a world of
> >varying policies a registrar offers the following simple one: we hand out
> >names first-come first-served no matter what. The consumer who anticipates
> >any question of her right to hold the sought-after name would go with that
> >registrar, and a disputant would be left with no policy at all.
> Which is the way it started out, before NSI's legal advisor whom I won't
> bother to name spotted a way to start a gold rush and haul in the $$$$ --
> it was "I register first-come first-served; if you've a problem I'll put you
> two in touch, and then you and him fight; I'll hold your coats." Nothing
> could have been more simple and equitable. As for "no policy at all,"
> why should registrars have a "policy" about trademark rights? NSF,
> the DOC (except for its Patent and Trademark Office which clearly
> is not consulted), WIPO, registrars, ICANN, you net mavens and ISPs,
> etc., don't know diddly squat about trademarks anyway and should never
> have entered into that domain -- um -- area.
> Bill Lovell
Jeffrey A. Williams
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
Contact Number: 972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208