Re: [soac-mapo] charter and mission
- To: soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: [soac-mapo] charter and mission
- From: Richard Tindal <richardtindal@xxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2010 12:14:59 -0700
Understand and respect you are opposed to GNSO Implementation Recommendation 6,
and were opposed when it was debated and passed in 2008. Current events
are making you look prescient on that.
However, if for political reasons there had to be something in the DAG that
allowed for the challenging/ blocking of names, is there a process that would
be least objectionable to you?
Evan has probably already provided his thoughts on that - a lightweight, IO
based mechanism for names that are 'profoundly objectionable to a large number
Milton - Is there a process that is least objectionable to you? Nothing
we'll hold you to -- I understand 'have nothing' is your strongly preferred
On Jul 16, 2010, at 6:57 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote:
> 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
>> 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
>> monopolies) based on the judgement of an external panel?