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

[wg-b] MHSC position paper

Hello Michael

I have been incedibly crushed with dead-lines. However, the paper that I
have submitted to WG-C also covers the issues in WG-B. It is located on my
web-site at <http://www.dnso.net/library/dnso-tld.mhsc-position.shtml>.
Please, accept this as my submission for now.

Of particular note is are the last paragraphs in section "1 Introduction",
"3.1.9 TLD Stability and defensibility", and "3.2.2 The registry should be a
trademark holder".

This paper is a living paper. I am still working on it. What you see is
version 08Oct99.

The short form of MHSC position is that unless the courts are willing to
direct the root-registry how to filter potential names or clear and present
law is cast which removes the liability ambiguities, involved with filtering
names (famous or otherwise), it shall not do so. Rather, the registry
operator will defer to the only recognized authority, who also has competent
jusrisdiction over the registry, the nearest court system that controls the
gandarmes, which can effect the registry operator.

No one here has yet convinced me that ANY filtration path is NOT fraught
with legal liabilities, for the registry operator. In fact, we have been
debating ways and means of filtration. IMHO, this is way ahead of the game.

There is also the issue that there is no context for this debate without
ALSO considering the effect on new TLDs.