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

RE: [wg-b] Re: [registrars] Next Step



I could be wrong, but I believe we've not seen the posting that prompted the
message in question:

> At 19:53 25-04-2000 -0400, Michael D. Palage wrote:
> >Some times you move so forward in a process that you may forget other
> >potential solutions. So if there are any viable solutions that anyone has
> >please offer them up.

Perhaps it was posted originally only to WG-C?

Judith

800 & Dot Com News, Intelligence, Consulting  FREE Daily HeadsUp Headlines.
"...superb real-time source..."  "...invaluable..." 
"...indispensable..."
http://ICBTollFree.com  http://1800TheExpert.com   (U.S.) 1 800 The
Expert
Judith Oppenheimer  mailto:joppenheimer@icbtollfree.com   +1 212
684-7210


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-wg-b@dnso.org [mailto:owner-wg-b@dnso.org]On Behalf Of John
Berryhill Ph.D. J.D.
Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2000 11:35 AM
To: Robert F. Connelly; wg-b@dnso.org
Subject: Re: [wg-b] Re: [registrars] Next Step


Add an opposition mechanism, and this would be the least foolish method thus
far.

However, is my understanding incorrect that the "list" is now the list of
all registered trademarks (not counting those registered in "unimportant"
countries like Tunisia, which we can simply write off as not being very much
like the US, which is the most important country, of course).

----- Original Message -----
From: Robert F. Connelly <rconnell@psi-japan.com>
To: Registrars@Dnso.Org <registrars@dnso.org>
Cc: WG-B <wg-b@dnso.org>
Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2000 8:17 AM
Subject: [wg-b] Re: [registrars] Next Step


> At 19:53 25-04-2000 -0400, Michael D. Palage wrote:
> >Some times you move so forward in a process that you may forget other
> >potential solutions. So if there are any viable solutions that anyone has
> >please offer them up.
>
> Dear Michael:
>
> A very good point.  As you know, in engineering we try to avoid "assumed
> restrictions" which are not restrictions at all.
>
> [Let me correct my prior posting:  "Fictitious restrictions."]
>
> [I got a U.S. patent around 1964 for a square petri dish.  All petri
dishes
> had been round till then.  Mine had some additional features which
> permitted counting particles in stuff like liquid oxygen, missile
> propellant, hydraulic fluids -- and bedside water carafes in
> hospitals.  All because I broke out of the old fictitious restrictions of
> round petri dishes.]
>
> Regards, BobC, who has no new ideas;-{   (But now does;-)
>
> Let me expand on what I said before.  We've all been looking at that
> illusory *someone* to create a list.  Why not "self create* the list?
>
> Let the IPR community post their own credentials.
>
> Have someone review their submissions to see if they fit the objective
> criteria.
>
> Let's establish the criteria along the lines of my prior proposal.
>
> The point is to encourage the IP community to submit their own
> credentials.  Set up someone to evaluate those objective
> credentials.  Based upon the results, self selected trademark owners could
> register one domain for each confirmed "famous" trademark plus no more
then
> five related terms.
>
> Let each participant submit one of the following (to be determined):
>
> 1. List of issued trademarks in various territories per formula shown
below.
>
> 2. documentary proof of issued trademarks in the Territories per formula
> shown below:
>
> Along with the submission would be a fee -- $1,000 to $10,000.  These fees
> to pay for the clerical work to verify the submissions.
>
> Now, which should it be, honor system or proof?    Under the honor system,
> applicants could lose their domains if they cheated.
>
> Now to the criteria, my original posting and my present idea:
>
> Begin quotation from Subject:  Re: [wg-b] Revised IPC Proposal
> At 12:56 14-04-2000 -0400, Michael D. Palage wrote:
>
> The most significant concern I have heard about having WIPO prepare a list
> of globally famous trademarks if that it could based upon subjective
> criteria.  Amounts amount of funds expended on advertising was suggested
as
> one rather lose, un-auditable criterion I heard.   I propose that WIPO
> employ a quantifiable, objective set of criteria along the following
lines:
>
> I offer a counter proposal on which considerable effort has been expended
> in the past.  The very first iteration of the WIPO proposal which I saw in
> perhaps Feb or Mar of 1997 had an objective, quantifiable set of criteria
> -- the number of issued patents worldwide.
>
> I therefore propose the following objective criteria for a globally famous
> trademark/service mark:
>
> 1. A minimum of X issued trademarks worldwide.  To be considered in these
> calculations, these marks would need to be at least one year old on 1
> January 2000.
>
> 2. Those trademarks to include at least Y each registered marks in 3 of
the
> 5 ICANN regions.
>
> 3. Those regional trademarks being issued in at least Z countries in the
> regions claimed in item 2, above.
>
> I suggest that X>49, perhaps X>74
>
> I suggest that Y>10
>
> I suggest that Z>5
>
> (It should be noted that there are about 50 countries in the AP
> region.  Five is a very small number.  Perhaps three would be adequate for
> North America, but all the other territories have large numbers of member
> states.)
>
> end quotation:
>
> Final evaluation:
>
> I suggest X>74
>
> I suggest that Y>10
>
> I suggest that Z>3
>
> end evaluation:
>
> This morning/evening some of us agreed to the idea that there should be a
list.
>
> Some of us thought WIPO should not create the list.
>
> Some were afraid that there would be complaints from those who did not
make
> the cut.
>
> My proposal leaves it to those who want to be on the list to apply.
>
> My proposal gives them the means to opt to apply and the rules to "join
the
> club".
>
> Let's run it up the flagpole and see who is too  chicken to play the game.
>
> BobC
>
>
>
>
>