Re: [ga] Re: ccTLD dialogue with Joe Sims (wasRe: your comments

[Marc Schneiders <marc@fuchsia.bijt.net>]

On Mon, 3 Jun 2002, at 10:19 [=GMT-0400], Joe Sims wrote:

> Cybersquatting in a cctld cannot have anything at all to do with ICANN,
> whose mission is technical management of names and numbers, not to protect
> intellectual property rights.

> The cctlds are not equivalent to the gtlds. Regulations which ICANN  passes
> as the LIC for the g-space are nothing to do with the laws and policies
> each
> cctld develops by its own processes.
>
> Until we get this clear, the real prospects where there can be discussions
> about crossover cannot begin. I for one, see much advantage in a place
> where
> those problems that have been solved in the g-space can be brought to the
> collective attention of the ccTLDs, who may well adopt similar or
> complementary policies (and vice versa).  An existing example is the
> adoption by several
> countries of UDRP as the local DRP. I see the ccSO as the place where the
> cc's will meet, and it should be to the ccSO that proposals for "crossover"
> policies can be debated.

Why should Coca Cola have a right to cocacola.nl if they have no trademark
in the Netherlands? If they do have one (which I would guess), they can
easily deal with any cybersquatter who registers cocacola.nl through the
Dutch courts.  Trademarks do not exist in the world, only in countries. It
is bad enough that for the gTLDs some world trademark regime, without due
process, has been set up. I find it amazing that people try to extend this
to ccTLDs, especially since ICANN is too afraid to even evaluate the UDRP.
That should have been done over a year ago. We are still waiting.

--
This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html