Re: [wg-b] How would .fame work?

[Harald Tveit Alvestrand <Harald@alvestrand.no>]

At 14:36 13.12.99 -0500, Martin B. Schwimmer wrote:

> >Could you please run through your line of reasoning with the statement
> >above again that ".FAME is not such a TLD."
>
>Becuase it has been defined as a suffix for AUFMs which don't need context,
>it is not a TLD suffix which adds context.  In XEROX.FAME, .FAME is
>duplicative.  IN DELTA.TRAVEL or DELTA.HEALTH, .TRAVEL or .HEALTH helps you
>interpret "which" Delta in a way which is unnecessary for XEROX.

Note that the NCDNHC position paper did not use your Absolutely Unique 
Famous Marks idea. It's entirely possible (even likely) that Nike will get 
a registration in .fame, even though it can't sell sportswear in Spain 
using that name.

>p.s. why is there little or no piracy in .edu?

A defined governing body with an interest in limiting the problem.

                  Harald

--
Harald Tveit Alvestrand, EDB Maxware, Norway
Harald.Alvestrand@edb.maxware.no