Return to newtlds Forum - Message Thread - FAQ

Username: fnord
Date/Time: Fri, June 23, 2000 at 1:07 AM GMT
Browser: Microsoft Internet Explorer V5.5 using Windows 98
Score: 5
Subject: hyperlinks

Message:
 

        iplawyer writes:

>In other words, I might reach an agreement with cases.com whereby they link to my cases.web site, in return for a percentage of sales which come from consumers who click through to my site.<

In fact, I think that should be used far more often as a solution to domain squabbles. A link saying something like: 'if you came to whatever.com looking for whatever.org click here'. The wheels of commerce shouldn't grind to a halt because of one additional mouseclick. Paying the other site for that, perhaps along the lines of an affiliate program, is better still, but even doing it gratis is just good neighborliness.

As well, in the suggestion of closed domains for TM holders along the lines of .airline, while there wouldn't normally be conflicting names, there are examples like ABC TV of America and Australia. If there is a .media or .broadcast (.tv wouldn't be named by ICANN for that), then abc.media or abc.media.reg could be a basic web page saying:
for this abc, click here            for this other abc, click here

With site one being american.abc.media etc or abc.ny.ny.reg.us. or whatever (that would be transparent to the end user once there). Again not a major bar to international commerce. It is after all the way the web works.

>Within the next few years, I predict that the courts will set clear precedents concerning domain name holders' rights to use names which do not infringe on any party's trademarks.<

I agree with you, but a few years is a long time for people to be inconvenienced.

>All of my clients hold federal and/or California trademarks, and their rights should be protected.<

I see so many plusses and no obvious negatives for a .reg (and/or a series of closed industry specific domains) for businesses big and small, I can't imagine why they wouldn't want it. I have yet to see a decent argument against it, here or elsewhere. It also isn't a new suggestion, if ICANN doesn't adopt it I hope that they will be clear about why they are not doing so.

     

d_d@email.com - email without ICANN in Subject: line is blocked


Message Thread:


Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy