Re: [ALSC-Forum] Self-regulation and ICANN

[Jeff Williams]

Bruce and all stakeholders or interested parties,

Bruce Young wrote:

> Jeff wrote:
>
> >  Not even .COM or .BIZ should be considered for "Special" Trademark
> >protection.
>
> Sorry, Jeff.  Although this is a rare event, I disagree with you here. :)

  Indeed this is unfortunate.  Perhaps I can yet pursued you differently.

>
>
> If we stipulate that trademarks used in domain names have value to their
> holders (and even if we don't the courts do!), then we need to give the
> corporation a "playground" where they can play by  their rules: i.e  COM and
> BIZ.  Then tell them their rules won't apply elsewhere!

  The rule of law in the US applies everywhere.  Such it is with the Lanham Act.

Ergo, giving special protection through the UDRP or defining new "Classes"
fro Trademarked after the fact for any particular TLD string is a gross
and damaging contrivance that sets a president in that body of law.
Hence, in short, our position.  To paraphrase, "Give them and inch, they
will take or try to take a mile".

> All the good names
> are taken in COM anyway, and BIZ is soon to be full if they follow their
> current policy of giving trademark holders first dibs!

  One of the problems is that a prior .BIZ registry came first.

> So let them have
> them and good riddance!  Just keep their grasping fingers away from the
> remaining TLDs!

  The problem with this is that they will not keep their grasping fingers
away from ANY TLD string.  But we view this as a non-issue really.
Rather, we take a more legally ethical high ground, which I mentioned above.

>
>
> >That would be extralegal.  This is what the Interim ICANN
> >BoD, of which Esther was the COB at that time imposed upon the
> >stakeholders through WIPO in the UDRP.
>
> Yes.  I disagree with the WIPO as a choice for dispute resolution.  Their
> primary focus on intellectual property rights biases them against the little
> guy who's using the domain name in good faith but didn't have the money or
> time to trademark their company name.  I agree that, if we can achieve our
> goal of an active, influential At-Large, then that is one are that needs
> strong attention, before the court pile up an egregious stack of case law to
> the contrary!
>
> Bruce Young
> Portland, Oregon
> byoung651@home.com
> http://members.home.net/byoung651/index.html

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 118k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208