RE: [soac-mapo] charter and mission

[Milton L Mueller <mueller@xxxxxxx>]

Philip:
There are huge differences, enormous differences. With trademark, you have a 
well-developed body of national law that has been negotiated and codified into 
international treaties over more than a century. We know what a trademark is, 
why we protect them, over a century of precedent regarding issues such as 
passing off, concurrent use, consumer confusion, confusing similarity, 
dilution, trade dress and so on. 

We do not know what "morality and public order" is when applied as a _global_ 
standard. We have no international treaties defining it, no precedents that 
apply across multiple national territories. A national polity or local 
community may have some legitimate basis for saying that a specific name 
violates _their_ standards. An "examining staff officer" has NO such basis for 
making MAPO judgments on a global basis. 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx] On
> Behalf Of Philip Sheppard
> Sent: Friday, July 16, 2010 9:12 AM
> To: soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [soac-mapo] charter and mission
> 
> 
> Milton,
> I've made much of the current practise of trade mark offices to exclude
> objectionable trade marks (national or regional monopolies in their
> class) based
> on the judgement of an examining staff officer.
> 
> What is so different about ICANN doing this for domain names
> (international
> monopolies) based on the judgement of an external panel?
> 
> Philip
> 
>