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

[registrars] Registrar Position Pape: Comments relative to consumer protection.

Dear Michael:

I suggest a change to the bullet points which would emphasize that 
underlying reason for trademark laws is to protect the *consumer* not the 
*owner*.  If we look at this issue from this perspective, the issue has 
vastly different ramifications.  Let me take a first cut at amending the list:

* The domain name system was not designed as a source identifier for
* As a result of the commercialization of the Internet, many consumers have 
attributed to domain names a source identification.

* Thus, domain names have acquired a source identifier function similar to 
traditional trademarks and service marks.

* To protect consumers from being victimized or defrauded, it is important 
to minimize the confusion between the source identification aspect of 
domain names and famous trademarks.

* The White Paper called for a process for protecting famous trademarks in
the generic top-level domains.  [Michael:  Can we draw an extension upon 
this statement and the consumer protection role of trademarks?  It would be 
worthwhile to make a quick check of the White Paper to see if we can wrap 
consumer protection in the mantle of the White Paper.  Too late for me to 
do it, it's already after midnight.]

* Chapter Four of the WIPO report set forth a proposal for protecting famous
marks in connection with the domain name system.

etc., etc. as previously written

Personal regards, BobC

A word to the wise:   If someone sends you an Email with a large
number of addresses in the "CC:" field, those names can very easily
get into the hands of bulk Email merchants.   Unsolicited bulk Email
is known as "spamming".  Recently, I received a spam message
offering us software which would take all our Email and extract
the various addresses from it so it would be used in sending
spam messages.  The vendor would even purchase the output
from his software to further enhance his spamming business.

It is therefore considered very bad practice to put large lists
in the CC: field.  They should be put in the "BCC:" field.  "BCC"
stands for "blind courtesy copy".  (If you're old enough to remember
the typewriter, in those far distant days it meant "blind carbon copy".)
I often send Email to myself as the vehicle for sending to a list which
is in the BCC: field.

By the way (BTW in Internet jargon), spamming is against the
rules of the Internet.  Legitimate Internet Service Providers (ISPs)
will cut off the service of their clients if they continue to send
spams after a reasonable warning.

Bob Connelly