[wg-c] Mutually exclusive concepts.

["Robert F. Connelly" <rconnell@psi-japan.com>]

At 14:20 31-07-99 -0400, Cade,Marilyn S - LGA wrote:

>You'll find that many who are "TM" in the eyes of some engaged in this
>community are certainly concerned about how and when new gTLDs should and
>can be introduced, and what the "rules" are.  The WIPO recommendations were
>considered a fundamental first step, but not the entire answer to dealing
>with infringements and dilutions.  But these companies are, I find, more
>willing to work productively and collaboratively to analyze possible
>approaches than perhaps has been attributed.

Dear Marilyn:

I have some concern that there is no serious attempt being made to deal 
with warehousing of domain names.  In one of Professor Mueller's postings 
that I responded to last night (at least I *think* it was Milt's), he 
seemed to be confusing warehousing and cybersquatting.  (Yep, my 
recollection was right, I've pasted that posting below).

Another inconsistency is the mutually exclusive implications of various 
postings, as follows:

1. Some think there should be unique gTLDs which would have an obvious 
usage community, e.g. ".arts", ".rec", "nom" and "per".

2. Others think new gTLDs should be rolled out a couple at a time.

The inconsistency is that those who would use the use specific gTLDs, being 
presented with two new gTLDs, will be induced to select from the two 
non-descriptive gTLDs, the one which is less unsuitable than the other.

We get into so much trouble dealing with hypothetical conditions and 
situations.  My old boss, Dr. Bray (quoted in my signature line, below), 
had another, similar saying.  He'd come out in my lab and say, "Let's have 
a meeting of the Skeptics Society".  He'd pull down from my drying rack a 
beaker or two, graduated cylinder and proceed to test my hypothesis.  (I 
think we had a pretty even score, each was right in about half the cases.)

I sincerely believe that we need to stop talking and start doing some 
serious testing.  Milt made an interesting statement in the Berlin 
meeting.  I'll attempt to quote him, but it is just from my memory and I'll 
gladly accept his "redirect".  "We in academia can be more objective 
because we stand apart from commercial issues"  -- or words to that 
effect.  I find there is some truth in his statement.  I remember Dr. 
Pauling showing us silly putty.  1. He showed how it flowed under static 
conditions, 2. bounced when dropped and 3. shattered like glass when he hit 
it with a hammer.  He then gathered up the fragments, rolled them up, 
bounced the ball while saying, "And the most beautiful thing about it, it's 
*absolutely worthless*".  He was a proponent of the pursuit of Science 
(with a capital "S") for no other reason than what makes climbers want to 
climb Mount Everest.

We must not have the mind set which condemned medieval scholars to discuss 
how many angles could stand on the head of a pin. Let's do some serious 
testing -- and less talking.

Regards,
BobC

Attachment:

At 17:45 30-07-99 -0400, Milton Mueller wrote:
>Pre-emptive registration is not a solution to the problem; indeed, the 
>assumption by TM owners that they must protect marks by registering the 
>names rather than policing for actual infringement actually contributes to 
>the problem, by encouraging cybersquatting.

Dear Professor Mueller:

I fail to see your point.  If "cybersquatting" has been defined as the 
deliberate, bad faith registration of a well known (registered) Trademark, 
the registration by the Trademark holder would not be viewed as 
"cybersquatting".

Regards, BobC










~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"One test is worth three expert opinions!"
Ulric B. Bray