[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[ga-full] Re: [ga] Jus Primae Noctis [Was: An interesting dissent to sunrise provisions]
At 12:03 AM 04/18/2000 +0200, you wrote:
>The reality is, IMHO, that that IPC feels able to block any opening of
>new gTLDs unless the conditions are what they want.
>I, personally, had some doubts about the UDRP, but have taken the
>position that the provisions were globally reasonably fair, and that a
>Uniform, worldwide procedure would have been better than to be subject
>to "local" laws. But also, I was sure that this would have settled the
>problem of Trademarks for good.
I suspect that a lot of those who supported the UDRP did so not because
they cared one whit about domain name-trademark conflicts, but because they
thought that it was a necessary precondition for implementation of new
gTLDs. But now that we have a new UDRP and a powerful new U.S. law to
combat Cybersquatting, we're still asked to pay the "trademark tax" on all
Now's the time to show that we've done enough on the trademark problem and
that we need to move on to other work. I believe that a referendum in the
GA on the WG-B report would reveal that the only consensus about the
"trademark tax" is that it should not be paid.
This message was passed to you via the email@example.com list.
Send mail to firstname.lastname@example.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html