ICANNWatch
 
  Inside ICANNWatch  
Submit Story
Home
Lost Password
Preferences
Site Messages
Top 10 Lists
Latest Comments
Search by topic

Our Mission
ICANN for Beginners
About Us
How To Use This Site
ICANNWatch FAQ
Slash Tech Info
Link to Us
Write to Us

  Useful ICANN sites  
  • ICANN itself
  • Bret Fausett's ICANN Blog
  • Internet Governance Project
  • UN Working Group on Internet Governance
  • Karl Auerbach web site
  • Müller-Maguhn home
  • UDRPinfo.com;
  • UDRPlaw.net;
  • CircleID;
  • LatinoamerICANN Project
  • ICB Tollfree News

  •   At Large Membership and Civil Society Participation in ICANN  
  • icannatlarge.com;
  • Noncommercial Users Constituency of ICANN
  • NAIS Project
  • ICANN At Large Study Committee Final Report
  • ICANN (non)Members page
  • ICANN Membership Election site

  • ICANN-Related Reading
    Browse ICANNWatch by Subject

    Ted Byfied
    - ICANN: Defending Our Precious Bodily Fluids
    - Ushering in Banality
    - ICANN! No U CANN't!
    - roving_reporter
    - DNS: A Short History and a Short Future

    David Farber
    - Overcoming ICANN (PFIR statement)

    A. Michael Froomkin
    - When We Say US™, We Mean It!
    - ICANN 2.0: Meet The New Boss
    - Habermas@ discourse.net: Toward a Critical Theory of Cyberspace
    - ICANN and Anti-Trust (with Mark Lemley)
    - Wrong Turn in Cyberspace: Using ICANN to Route Around the APA & the Constitution (html)
    - Form and Substance in Cyberspace
    - ICANN's "Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy"-- Causes and (Partial) Cures

    Milton Mueller
    - Ruling the Root
    - Success by Default: A New Profile of Domain Name Trademark Disputes under ICANN's UDRP
    - Dancing the Quango: ICANN as International Regulatory Regime
    - Goverments and Country Names: ICANN's Transformation into an Intergovernmental Regime
    - Competing DNS Roots: Creative Destruction or Just Plain Destruction?
    - Rough Justice: A Statistical Assessment of the UDRP
    - ICANN and Internet Governance

    David Post
    - Governing Cyberspace, or Where is James Madison When We Need Him?
    - The 'Unsettled Paradox': The Internet, the State, and the Consent of the Governed

    Jonathan Weinberg
    - Sitefinder and Internet Governance
    - ICANN, Internet Stability, and New Top Level Domains
    - Geeks and Greeks
    - ICANN and the Problem of Legitimacy

    Highlights of the ICANNWatch Archive
    (June 1999 - March 2001)


     
    This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
    US Govt. Agency Says .us Procurement (Partly) Unlawful | Log in/Create an Account | Top | 59 comments | Search Discussion
    Click this button to post a comment to this story
    The options below will change how the comments display
    Threshold:
    Check box to change your default comment view
    The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
    Thank you Grumpy
    by WIPOorgUK on Saturday February 16 2002, @01:51PM (#4898)
    User #3146 Info | http://wipo.org.uk/
    Intelligent debate by somebody against the solution - it is so rare. Nearly all of them are cowards - but not you.

    > The Internet and trademark law may be completely incompatible.

    That is what Big Business and Lawyers would have us all believe - but it is an untruth. Each can be unique and totally distinctive - like a trademark - even given a certificate of authentication (.reg). Can you not see that?

    > A good sunrise policy, however, limits the disconnects between public expectation and reality.

    The policy is fatally flawed. These facts are undisputable - All Sunrise does, is give Trademarks priority over small business without trademark and denies people the right to use these words. Also, it does not guarantee that all trademarks would get a domain anyway - even if a thousand Sunrises, as they would fight over them. e.g. Thousands of trademarks use the word apple all over the world.

    Please deny any of these facts - if you can.

    > The .us policy is an improvement upon the .info sunrise for the following reasons:

    > Limitation to text-only marks. Logos and design marks with textual elements are NOT eligible for the .us sunrise.

    This unlawful overreaching of trademark was allowed in previous Sunrises.

    > Verification against blatant abuse of the sunrise system. Neustar will compare all sunrise apps against the USPTO database to confirm that the domain name applicant is the owner of a valid registration or application.

    They allowed deliberate fraudulant abuses that they could have easily checked in previous Sunrises.

    Perhaps you agree with my opinion on this? The authorities must be corrupt to allow these abuses.

    How does this answer the fact, that the policy is fatal flawed?

    It is twicefold unlawful. Unfair competition and First Amendment.

    > The policy isn't perfect... in particular, I object to Neustar's proposal to allow sunrise apps based on pending applications, or on registrations on the Supplemental Register (terms that may someday become distinctive for a particular source of a good or service, but currently lack the requisite public recognition to show distinctiveness).

    More abuse of the system then.

    > To answer Mr. Anderson's last question: Any proper use of a domain name or trademark by one person precludes or abridges the rights of other persons... that's life.

    No - it is not life - it is unlawful - on two counts.

    > When that use is improper, then persons with a more appropriate claim may attempt to use the law to correct that improper use.

    You totally avoid the main issues. Not all trademarks can use their mark. It stops free speech.

    > A properly implemented sunrise policy is the least-restrictive means of allowing consumer expectation to match reality from the outset.

    As you are a consumer, I presume you can tell difference between apple.computer.us.reg and apple.record.uk.reg?

    So then, please explain why .reg does not stop 'consumer confusion', 'trademark conflict' and 'passing off'.

    How can any person of honour deny that Sunrise is NOT fatally flawed?

    - Garry
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Re: This could go on forever
    by Anonymous on Sunday February 17 2002, @02:25AM (#4902)
    It appears there is no satisfying Mr orgUK. Your opinion is obviously set in lead and you aren't going to change it, no matter what others say. However, people (and I mean Joe & Sally Average User as well as trademark attorneys and "Speak Freely or Die" internet know-it-alls like yourself) just aren't going to pay money for this .reg or .unreg proposal you keep throwing around. People want clarity and they don't want to share.

    Trademark owners want to take advantage of the exclusive protection that they have in the "real" world. I mean- if Coca-Cola can stop someone from operating an unaffiliated business called Coca-Cola Sales Inc in Toldeo, OH, then why shouldn't they be able to stop Coca-ColaSales.com? Or Coca-colabiz.biz? If the business couldn't call themselves that in the real world, why allow it on the net?

    This is the dilemma that we face because trademarks & domain names really conflict. Grumpy has made some great points. Mr orgUK has reiterated his. IMHO, new gTLD's can't be released without some type of workable Sunrise provision. The .us plan looks decent. It affects trademark owners with a US nexus. It will not lock up every word in the English language prior to landrush for the public. It will not unduely harm small business (small businesses can own trademarks just as easily as big ones).
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Re: ICANN Boards must be quiet...
    by fnord (groy2kNO@SPAMyahoo.com) on Monday February 18 2002, @10:34AM (#4950)
    User #2810 Info
    Grumpy writes:

    A properly implemented sunrise policy is the least-restrictive means of allowing consumer expectation to match reality from the outset.
    It may be the least restrictive to trademark holders, it is restrictive of others' fair use. Trademarks supposedly exist to protect the consumer from confusion, not to allow trademark holders to have first rights to all sLD character strings.

    Having TLD's which correspond to a class of product or service and incorporate .reg would be the best way to allow.. consumer expectation to match reality. Consumers already have some expectation of that in the real world. Unfortunately we can't go back and start again or retroactively insert .reg into the existing clutter where necessary. I see two options:

    1. Use .reg with some future TLDs.

    This would be a win-win, it would be useful to both consumers and IP interests. IP interests could maintain their presence in existing open (to whatever degree) TLDs and redirect to their .reg site. Consumers would learn not to trust a site as authoritative of a trademark holder that didn't include .reg. The IP folks, if necessary, could spend some money and energy on further educating them and less on lawsuits and UDRP claims. It is probably a non-starter because typing that additional .reg is seen as such a burden, slowing consumers down for a few seconds from doing their duty to consume.

    2. Have some TLDs make use of the tm or tmreg symbols in the domain name.

    This will be doable when non-ASCII naming comes to the DNS. It could be done in various ways: A key-combo (a single combined keystroke) could produce the symbol. An enhanced keyboard could have such a key (and many keyboards these days use extra buttons for all manner of shortcuts). Surely a single keystroke won't grind the wheels of commerce to a halt. And/or the symbol need not be typed at all, some TLDs know to serve it up in some fashion, as an addition in the address, and/or built into browsers a la the lock or key Secure Socket Layer symbol. Again, this would be a win-win, consumers would know that they have the genuine item. It wouldn't take much to educate them, they don't appreciate knockoffs any more than IP owners do, I submit they (with their email boxes full of scam spam) want this already. This would actually be a win-win-win because non-commercial uses of those names in TLDs that don't have that stamp would also be free to exist.

    Will we ever see anything like this? Well, if the IP folks can control all the namespace, what incentive is there for them to give some of it up? I'd say they're fighting a costly, and probably losing, battle for the entire space so far. Restricting themselves to a branded restricted space (and they could maintain and increase their existing space in the open area, just not at the expence of others) would allow them to interface with consumers, not just thru the domain name but through all the content it serves up. EG, if I am on some site or receive some email and it doesn't lead to where that symbol shows before I purchase something, I ain't buying. Seems to me this would be a win-win-win for all. -g

    [ Reply to This | Parent ]


    Search ICANNWatch.org:


    Privacy Policy: We will not knowingly give out your personal data -- other than identifying your postings in the way you direct by setting your configuration options -- without a court order. All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner. The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008 by ICANNWatch.Org. This web site was made with Slashcode, a web portal system written in perl. Slashcode is Free Software released under the GNU/GPL license.
    You can syndicate our headlines in .rdf, .rss, or .xml. Domain registration services donated by DomainRegistry.com