[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [discuss] Notes - Names Council Meeting, San Jose - 062599
Why don't we get legal and not set a policy at all, other than how to
comply with court orders, and require proof of Trademark application
prior to registering a name?
> -----Original Message-----
> From: email@example.com
> [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]On Behalf Of
> Sent: Monday, June 28, 1999 9:47 AM
> To: Kent Crispin; email@example.com
> Subject: Re: [discuss] Notes - Names Council Meeting, San
> Jose - 062599
> Kent Crispin wrote:
> > The one who has the burden of taking the case to court is the one
> > who loses the DR process. That is not a priori the domain holder.
> Kent -- you should go reread the NSI dispute policy. The
> loser is a priori the
> domain name holder -- who is required to file suit or
> persuade the complaining
> TM holder to back off.
> What a great concession they make to the rights of the domain
> name owner:
> register a new domain name and they'll give you 90 more days
> to use the one they
> plan to take away. That has all the equity of giving you a
> running start
> before they turn the dogs loose on you.
> Before accepting your thesis that this fair minded policy
> should be adopted by ICANN, perhaps we should test your
> theory that this is fair with a little round of turnabout.
> Let's change the policy to the exact reverse for five years
> -- and then ask the TM holders if they think it is fair and balanced.
> Obviously no one would do such a thing. So why don't we just
> get real and set up a policy that
> is fair?