[ncdnhc-discuss] Some NGOs that share SLD strings with .com or .net firms

[James Love]

----- Original Message -----
From: <KathrynKL at aol.com>
To: <love at cptech.org>; <discuss at icann-ncc.org>
> You have taken the remark out of context.  I was supporting the current
> system of first-come, first-served registration.  As you showed in your
> email, people generally register in the appropriate place.  That part of
the
> Domain Name System, pre-existing ICANN, works.

    Buinesses seek to take .org registrations away, using their commerical
trademark rights.    Also, in .net, when  Netsol ended the requirement that
.net be used for networks, companies not in the network business sought to
take away domains in the .net domain on the basis of their non-network
business trademarks.

   If .org is "appropriate" for non-commerical activies, it would be useful
to make that clear, because that would strenghten the rights of the
non-commerical .org domain name holders, in UDRP type proceedings.   There
are lots of ways to do this, and one can do this in a way that is inclusive
of all sorts of non profit or noncommerical entities and also non-commercial
uses by individuals.  One could make this a highly expensive and frustrating
legalistic mechanism that included very entities, but one could also make
this a simple costless statement of appropriate use for .org, that made no
demands regarding legal status of registrations, included individuals and
informal associations, and was not subject to enforcement, and only came
into play (was only relevant for trademark disputes) during UDRP, and
grandfathered in legacy .org holders.    The earlier appropriate use
statement for .net was I believe a single sentence that Jon Postel wrote.

    If there was a presumption that .org was the "appropriate place" for
non-commerical domain holders, it would reallocate trademark rights, taking
away rights from businesses that held trademarks and giving more rights to
non-commerical domain holders.   Just like I don't see exxon having a
"right" to assert its trademark in exxon.union, and I don't see exxon
having a right to assert its trademark in exxon.org.   But this is just our
opinon.  Others in the NCC may not think this is an important issue.

  Jamie


>
> -k
>
> J. Love wrote:
> > I am surprised that you defend the current system as one that "works --
and
> > works well!"
>
>