RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] VI Use Case Template,

[Milton L Mueller <mueller@xxxxxxx>]

Eric

Sure, there are some ambiguities in the concept of single registrant. But 
fundamentally, we are talking about private name spaces. The lingo 
("confusingly similar") and logic of trademark protectionism - derived from our 
experience with the .com space in the 1996-2003 time frame - simply doesn't 
apply there. Yes, of course I know that there is a legion of people whose 
careers and conditioned reflexes are based on the assumption that it does. But 
anyone who contributes to this fantasy is not helping. 

--MM

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Eric Brunner-Williams [mailto:ebw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Sunday, April 04, 2010 10:15 AM
> To: Milton L Mueller
> Cc: tbarrett@xxxxxxxxxxx; Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] VI Use Case Template, PLEASE READ EMAIL
> BEFORE VIEWINGATTACHMENT!!!!!
> 
> Milton,
> 
> Apropos of your remarks to Tom, examples both illuminate and obscure.
> 
> The active participants of the gnso-idng list struggled with this
> issue in November and December.
> 
> I was responsible for a draft, which attempted to address issues
> relating to "confusingly similar", and which contained several examples.
> 
> The second example was "duck", which is a single character, and I
> didn't want to use an example with less than two characters, as that
> is another area where the locus is on label length, not the example
> sought here, so I made it "duck soup" and, via Google's language tool,
> the translation "鸭汤" (yā tāng). Note the Marx Brothers reference.
> 
> This has the disadvantage of being an example of "meaning", yet
> "meaning" was the greatest concern I am aware of, off-list and on-list.
> 
> It is remotely possible that few, if any, are as, or more concerned,
> with your right to write arbitrarily, as they are with what examples
> illuminate, or mis-illuminate, that is, with the subject matter at
> hand, rather than the status of other contributors.
> 
> There are areas of closely held knowledge which, if used as an
> example, have vastly different primary meanings to those with the
> background, and those without that prior knowledge. To arrive at a
> best understanding of the contributors to this PDP, common terms and
> common meanings are profoundly useful. Therefore, some thought and
> care for others has to go into the creation of the intellectual
> objects we create and interact with.
> 
> To give an example of something we don't yet _know_, we don't yet
> _know_ if when we say "single registrant" we are referring to
> .quixotic-persona" and some few entrants, say .waiting-for-godot and
> the entries "vladimir" and "estragon", or a capital or liability
> accumulation of very large size and a very large class of persons with
> a relationship to the accumulation, say .dukes-v-walmart with a
> zonefile consisting entries for each of the 1.6 million women employed
> at Walmart since 12/26/98, and plaintiff's counsel, defendant's
> counsel, their witnesses and pleadings, and the courts.
> 
> We simply don't know if "SR" means
> {abuse,legal,marketing,sales}.soap-corp or something the size of .org.
> 
> Eric