From: owner-wg-c-digest@dnso.org (WG-C-DIGEST) To: wg-c-digest@dnso.org Subject: WG-C-DIGEST V1 #65 Reply-To: Sender: owner-wg-c-digest@dnso.org Errors-To: owner-wg-c-digest@dnso.org Precedence: bulk WG-C-DIGEST Wednesday, March 29 2000 Volume 01 : Number 065 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 26 Mar 2000 19:33:54 -0800 From: "Roeland M. J. Meyer" Subject: [wg-c] Overlimits I apologize to the list. I seems that I have overstepped my bounds and used my entire weeks posting budget. I wasn't paying sufficient attention to the CC lines, strictly my fault. Oh well, my opponents now have an entire week to counter my arguments and cases, unopposed . Granted, it's a cheap gift, I don't have much time during the week anyway . Again, I apologize for stepping way over the two-post limit. - --- R O E L A N D M . J . M E Y E R ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 26 Mar 2000 19:32:28 -0800 (PST) From: "William X. Walsh" Subject: RE: [wg-c] Application Requirements - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Mikki, you didn't click current status Thank you for your request. Here are the latest results from the TARR web server. Serial Number: 75225757 Registration Number: (NOT AVAILABLE) Trademark (words only): .XXX Current Status: A non-final action has been mailed. This is a letter from the examining attorney requesting additional information and/or making an initial refusal. However, no final determination as to the registrability of the mark has been made. Date of Status: 1999-11-12 Filing Date: 1997-01-14 On 27-Mar-2000 Mikki Barry wrote: > At 4:52 PM -0800 3/26/00, William X. Walsh wrote: >>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >>Hash: SHA1 >> >> >>On 27-Mar-2000 Roeland M. J. Meyer wrote: >> > What is also at issue is the fact that many SLDs, and a few TLDs, were >> > granted trademark status. >> >>You apparently missed the part where I said that no TLDs were >>granted trademark >>status. Not a single one. Everyone attempt has been rejected by the USPTO >>even before these policies were in place. > > This is not true. Several were indeed issued. Here is one: > > Typed Drawing > > Word Mark > .XXX > Goods and Services > IC 042. US 100 101. G & S: registration > services, namely, assigning and recording addresses for computers on > a public global > communications network, and dispute > administration services, namely, arranging for dispute resolution > processes to settle disputes over > conflicting addresses for computers on a > public global communications network > Mark Drawing Code > (1) TYPED DRAWING > Serial Number > 75225757 > Filing Date > January 14, 1997 > Files ITU > FILED AS ITU > Published for Opposition > May 19, 1998 > Owner > (APPLICANT) A Technology Company Inc. > CORPORATION CANADA 18 King Street East Suite 1505 Toronto, Ontario > CANADA > M5C 1C4 > Section 44 Indicator > SECT44 > Priority Date > November 25, 1996 > Type of Mark > SERVICE MARK > Register > PRINCIPAL > Live/Dead Indicator > LIVE - - -- William X. Walsh http://userfriendly.com/ Fax: 877-860-5412 or +1-559-851-9192 GPG/PGP Key at http://userfriendly.com/wwalsh.gpg - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.1c (Mandrake Linux) Comment: Userfriendly Networks http://www.userfriendly.com/ iD8DBQE43tZM8zLmV94Pz+IRAoqSAKD4yqP/HFe82TLd5sr+6cd7bAxOBACgxFus jR8ctCElnapKFTOiOxq6n8M= =nopX - -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 26 Mar 2000 19:33:20 -0800 (PST) From: "William X. Walsh" Subject: RE: [wg-c] Application Requirements - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 ,WEB does not appear in the USPTO database as registered to IOD. An application previously filed by another applicant was rejected. On 27-Mar-2000 Roeland M. J. Meyer wrote: > http://webtld.web/ > > Now will you answer my question? WHich database are you refering to? > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: William X. Walsh [mailto:william@userfriendly.com] >> Sent: Sunday, March 26, 2000 6:43 PM >> To: Roeland M. J. Meyer >> Cc: wg-c@dnso.org >> Subject: RE: [wg-c] Application Requirements >> >> >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >> Hash: SHA1 >> >> >> On 27-Mar-2000 Roeland M. J. Meyer wrote: >> > What is the source of your information? I have, at least >> one, flying the(tm) >> > flag. >> >> You can cite an example of a TLD which has been granted a trademark >> registration by the USPTO? I'd sure like to know which one. >> Every one in the >> database shows either that the application was just made, was >> given its first >> refusal and is awaiting response, was denied/rejected final, >> or was abandoned >> and never completed processing. >> >> Remember we are talking about guidelines for registered marks >> here, not just >> claims of mark status. >> >> - -- >> William X. Walsh >> http://userfriendly.com/ >> Fax: 877-860-5412 or +1-559-851-9192 >> GPG/PGP Key at http://userfriendly.com/wwalsh.gpg >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- >> Version: GnuPG v1.0.1c (Mandrake Linux) >> Comment: Userfriendly Networks http://www.userfriendly.com/ >> >> iD8DBQE43srH8zLmV94Pz+IRAl/bAJ4vNaQ3UHsytZu9Q2DeQ2wv+DjEYQCgqHrg >> oGq3tOVxn54RnMCCXS3sI08= >> =TXo4 >> -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- >> - - -- William X. Walsh http://userfriendly.com/ Fax: 877-860-5412 or +1-559-851-9192 GPG/PGP Key at http://userfriendly.com/wwalsh.gpg - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.1c (Mandrake Linux) Comment: Userfriendly Networks http://www.userfriendly.com/ iD8DBQE43taA8zLmV94Pz+IRAmYCAKDildv6XAPGUhRgPeAmKZfuFkBcNQCghQsJ xmAh7vwHLee0dgzwZMH1WqU= =BKh8 - -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 26 Mar 2000 22:37:18 -0500 From: Mikki Barry Subject: RE: [wg-c] Application Requirements >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >Hash: SHA1 > > >Mikki, you didn't click current status The mark was published for opposition, and according to the examining attorney, it was actually issued, but not yet reflected in the database, so yes, I did indeed check the current status. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 26 Mar 2000 19:35:54 -0800 (PST) From: "William X. Walsh" Subject: RE: [wg-c] Application Requirements - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 27-Mar-2000 Roeland M. J. Meyer wrote: > Actually, this argument, of Walsh's, is somewhat irrelevant. USPTO did > reverse position (which Wlash failed to contest) and this constitutes a risk > that prior trademarks, even common law marks, were effected by the decision > and could claim a grandfather clause exemption from the new rulings. BS. Common law marks are not effected, the rules specifically cover only registered marks, and common law marks always have to be challenged in court. There is no automatic presumption that their self claimed trademark would hold up. The fact remains that those arguing that TLDs were trademarkable said that there had been prior precedent to support their position, and indeed there is not. Now, .WEB is claiming protection, but that has not been tested by review of the USPTO (at least if so it is not in their twice a week updated online database, they've done a great job this last year in keeping it up to date). - - -- William X. Walsh http://userfriendly.com/ Fax: 877-860-5412 or +1-559-851-9192 GPG/PGP Key at http://userfriendly.com/wwalsh.gpg - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.1c (Mandrake Linux) Comment: Userfriendly Networks http://www.userfriendly.com/ iD8DBQE43tca8zLmV94Pz+IRAnUFAKCPsQAbpJafbnVe45tEkIaVos92wwCfZ8u9 oQ4wxsxCPRveRSrjZ8fbY70= =uIx1 - -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 26 Mar 2000 19:41:00 -0800 (PST) From: "William X. Walsh" Subject: RE: [wg-c] Application Requirements - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 27-Mar-2000 Roeland M. J. Meyer wrote: > Actually, this argument, of Walsh's, is somewhat irrelevant. USPTO did > reverse position (which Wlash failed to contest) This was not a position reversal, I most definitely contest that point. This was the creation of a position on an entirely new area the USPTO had not had to address before. - - -- William X. Walsh http://userfriendly.com/ Fax: 877-860-5412 or +1-559-851-9192 GPG/PGP Key at http://userfriendly.com/wwalsh.gpg - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.1c (Mandrake Linux) Comment: Userfriendly Networks http://www.userfriendly.com/ iD8DBQE43thM8zLmV94Pz+IRAjMHAJ9wN3zQBXq98J5NnIDM6Zv8jPBK1gCfR8d/ K1O6Py4O0/QMVcTSStpbR+Y= =5COH - -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 26 Mar 2000 20:27:43 -0800 (PST) From: "William X. Walsh" Subject: RE: [wg-c] Application Requirements - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 27-Mar-2000 Mikki Barry wrote: >>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >>Hash: SHA1 >> >> >>Mikki, you didn't click current status > > The mark was published for opposition, and according to the examining > attorney, it was actually issued, but not yet reflected in the > database, so yes, I did indeed check the current status. http://tarr.uspto.gov/servlet/tarr?regser=serial&entry=75225757 Current Status: A non-final action has been mailed. This is a letter from the examining attorney requesting additional information and/or making an initial refusal. However, no final determination as to the registrability of the mark has been made. Date of Status: 1999-11-12 Until this status is upgraded, it is the only thing we have to depend on. Do you have something you can point me to that shows that the status is wrong? Or do I just have to take your word for that? The USPTO has indicated that TARR is updated daily at 5am, and includes all actions current as of the previous day. If you have access to something showing otherwise, I'd love to see it. - - -- William X. Walsh http://userfriendly.com/ Fax: 877-860-5412 or +1-559-851-9192 GPG/PGP Key at http://userfriendly.com/wwalsh.gpg - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.1c (Mandrake Linux) Comment: Userfriendly Networks http://www.userfriendly.com/ iD8DBQE43uM/8zLmV94Pz+IRApQAAJwL9LG8Du5+v5M304d63YUYiy4VSACfXS2n 1C6dAfN0+gLSOdck30LVd+g= =N3HD - -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2000 11:28:23 +0200 From: "Philip Sheppard" Subject: Re: [wg-c] Sheppard/Kleiman princilials Following Rick's request... Here follows the current iteration of the Sheppard/Kleiman principles (version 8). - ------------------------------------------------------------- Criteria for assessing a gTLD application from a registry operator, subject to current technical constraints and evolving technical opportunities, should be based on all the following principles : Principles affecting the relationship between a gTLD Registry operator, Registrars and those who may register in the domain 1. Certainty: a gTLD should give the net user confidence that it stands for what it purports to stand for. 2. Honesty – a gTLD should not unnecessarily increase opportunities for malicious or criminal elements who wish to defraud net users. Principles effecting the relationship between Registries (and with relevance to Registrars) 3. Differentiation – the selection of a gTLD string should not confuse net users and so gTLDs should be clearly differentiated by the string and/or by the marketing and functionality associated with the string. 4. Competition – new gTLDs should foster competition in the supply of domain names and in the provision of Internet applications and services such that the authorization process for new gTLDs should not be used as a means of protecting existing service providers from competition. 5. Diversity - new gTLDs should foster the expression of views, both commercial and non-commercial. Other principles 6. Semantics – registry applications for a gTLD should explain what meaning will be imputed to the proposed gTLD string and how the new gTLD will be perceived by the relevant population of net users. 7. Multiplicity - new gTLDs should become available to meet the needs of an expanding Internet community. 8. Simplicity - adherence of the above principles should not impose an overly bureaucratic procedure on a registry. Philip ------------------------------ Date: 27 Mar 00 10:39:07 EST From: Richard Subject: [wg-c] hypothetical registry application - -As an exercise in visualizing what a registry application might look like, and for those of us interested in chartered TLDs, I thought a hypothetical application based on Kendall Dawson¡¦s application requirements might be useful. I filled this out based on my own paltry knowledges. I¡¦ve even taken a whack at the undecideds. I apologise if it seems a bit long, but it gives me a starting point for discussing internally at FDIC. Richard Campbell, FDIC 703 516-1135 alt email: RCampbell@FDIC.GOV General Information : Common Elements Qualification of the Registry „h Full name US Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation „h Mailing Address FDIC 550 17th Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20429 „h Phone and Fax Numbers (202) 898 1000 „h Public Key (we have one somewhere) „h List of directors Chairman, FDIC The board, FDIC „h Business plan The registry is designed to provide the customers of finanacial institutions insured by the FDIC that the internet presences of these institutions are legitimate, insured financial institutions. As a chartered registry (literally, since all US insured institutions are given charters by state or Federal), all insured institutions will be given at least one SLD, (or as many as would duplicate their existing web presence) „h Backup and disaster recovery plan The FDIC will assure no downtime to all insured institutions and customers. „h Technical capabilities The FDIC may contract the operation of the registry (or may operate it ourselves) „h Description of network capabilities The operator of the FDIC¡¦s registry will have sufficient bandwidth capacity to support this effort, with demonstrated capacity to expand on demand. „h Description of telephone systems „h Description of computer systems The operation of the registry will be on a 24x7 basis, and sufficient hardware will be available to expand on demand. „h Description of technical support The operator of the registry will provide 24x7 coverage and will respond to registry customers within one hour. Nature of the TLD - „h Proposed initial TLD (lots of choices, but perhaps .USBANKS or .FDICINSURED ) The TLD should be US specific and easy for customers to recognize and use. „h Published TLD meaning or purpose The purpose of the TLD is to provide customers of insured US financial institutions an easy to recognize and easily verifiable internet site name. As electronic banking expands, the customers must have confidence in their institutions, and the FDIC must have a means to assure that the institutions are legitimate. „h Estimated volume of registrations. This would be limited to insured institutions in the United States, currently around 12,000. „h Would applicant run the root for the TLD? The FDIC would run the root and determine the membership. „h Supporting documentation relating to trademark status of TLD (I¡¦ll have to ask the attorneys on this one) „h For-Profit or Non-Profit? Not for profit. „h Price and billing requirements There would be probably be no price: insured institutions already pay deposit insurance. (the FDIC Board may decide otherwise). „h Business and revenue model No revenue „h Chartered or Open? This is a charterd TLD „h What are the restrictions? Must be a financial institution insured by the FDIC. Undecided Issues: Shared vs. Non-shared „h Protocol(s) used for registration (SRP) The existing process for chartering a bank for FDIC insurance will cover this. „h Certificate authority (SSL) Best question of all. Does the FDIC want to be a CA or not? This is a board decision, but seems more manageable than being a CA on the open TLDs like .COM. Should the FDIC adopt this, it might be an advantage to a member bank/institution. The FDIC is involved in the closing of all financial institutions in the United States, so is in a good position to assure certificate revocation. „h Directory, ¡§whois¡¨ and Directory services „h Compliance to minimum software standards „h What reports are generated for registrars? „h How are the gTLD root servers operated and updated? „h Service Level, and QOS issues Trademark Issues: In the FDIC¡¦s case, we would make sure that all trademark concerns were addressed before issuing a SLD. „h Name conflicts (UDRP) „h Protection for famous and well-known trademarks „h Centralized access to ¡§whois¡¨ data Security Issues: „h Stability The FDIC would have to assure that this registry never went down. The FDIC has the Bank Insurance Fund and is backed by the US Treasury, but has never had to draw on Treasury funds. „h What about business failure or bankruptcy ? Banks that go out of business would have their sites disabled promptly. „h Probationary phase requirements No probationary period would be needed. „h Audit/review process The FDIC examines banks periodically, and would assure that any institution listed in the registry was legitimate and financially sound. „h Minimum TLD SLA „h Physical security mechanisms „h Insurance and bonds The FDIC is the insurer of the registered domains. Now, there could be other liability questions arising from this that we¡¦d have to explore. Liability for any certificate, for example. ____________________________________________________________________ Get free email and a permanent address at http://www.amexmail.com/?A=1 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2000 11:00:35 -0500 From: "Martin B. Schwimmer" Subject: RE: [wg-c] Application Requirements This is from the PTO website for .xxx "Current Status: A non-final action has been mailed. This is a letter from the examining attorney requesting additional information and/or making an initial refusal. However, no final determination as to the registrability of the mark has been made. Date of Status: 1999-11-12" The applicant probably filed a defective specimen after the notice of allowance issued and that produced an office action. It is theoretically possibly to offer .XXX brand .com registration services but that would not be a registration in the TLD suffix (this applicant also identifies services other than domain name registration). If the applicant runs an alternate root and is offering .XXX brand .xxx registration services and the specimen indicates as such, the examiner will bounce the application per guideline 2-99. At 10:37 PM 3/26/00 -0500, you wrote: >>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >>Hash: SHA1 >> >> >>Mikki, you didn't click current status > >The mark was published for opposition, and according to the examining >attorney, it was actually issued, but not yet reflected in the >database, so yes, I did indeed check the current status. > > > @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 21:35:57 -0500 From: James Love Subject: [wg-c] Working Group C agenda At this point, what is Working Group C trying to achieve? What are the issues that Working Group C is expected to address? If Working Group C fails to make progress on the details of how new TLDs get created, what happens? Nothing? Jamie ======================================================= James Love, Director | http://www.cptech.org Consumer Project on Technology | mailto:love@cptech.org P.O. Box 19367 | voice: 1.202.387.8030 Washington, DC 20036 | fax: 1.202.234.5176 ======================================================= ------------------------------ End of WG-C-DIGEST V1 #65 *************************