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

RE: [discuss] Notes - Names Council Meeting, San Jose - 062599

Why don't we get legal and not set a policy at all, other than how to
comply with court orders, and require proof of Trademark application
prior to registering a name?

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-discuss@dnso.org
> [mailto:owner-discuss@dnso.org]On Behalf Of
> d3nnis
> Sent: Monday, June 28, 1999 9:47 AM
> To: Kent Crispin; discuss@dnso.org
> Subject: Re: [discuss] Notes - Names Council Meeting, San
> Jose - 062599
> Kent Crispin wrote:
> > The one who has the burden of taking the case to court is the one
> > who loses the DR process.  That is not a priori the domain holder.
> Kent -- you should go reread the NSI dispute policy.  The
> loser is a priori the
> domain name holder -- who is required to file suit or
> persuade the complaining
> TM holder to back off.
> What a great concession they make to the rights of the domain
> name owner:
> register a new domain name and they'll give you 90 more days
> to use the one they
> plan to take away.  That has all the equity  of giving you a
> running start
> before they turn the dogs loose on you.
> Before accepting your thesis that this fair minded policy
> should be adopted by  ICANN, perhaps we should test your
> theory that this is fair with a little  round of turnabout.
> Let's change the policy to the exact reverse for five years
> -- and then ask the TM holders if they think it is fair and balanced.
> Obviously no one would do such a thing.  So why don't we just
> get real and set up a policy that
> is fair?
> >Dennis