Return to newtlds Forum - Message Thread - FAQ
||Tue, July 11, 2000 at 5:26 AM GMT (Tue, July 11, 2000 at 1:26 AM EDT)
||Microsoft Internet Explorer V5.0 using Windows 98
||sunrise, daybreak - it's all bunk
The sunrise +20 has been so criticized as to be shot down.
Daybreak is the new cry - the ability for TM holders who have had a federal regisered
mark for at least a year to grab the identical mark in the new TLD's. It, too
has been so shot at that it could endanger ICANN if adopted.
Do you remember when
we heard "read my lips?" No preferential treatment for anyone should be the
I own .coms with several under development right now. I'm not afraid
of new TLD's. Only those who are afraid they cannot succeed without a monopoly
are afraid. Those who would shut out competition are afraid. And those who
are just plain greedy are afraid.
There are laws all over the place to handle TM
infringement. That is sufficient to take care of any conflicts. It does
not fit the internet domain name system and should not be "lititgated" or prevented.
Laws were enacted to take care of crimes committed after the fact, not to prevent
it. We don't work that way.
The TM lobby would shut out all entrepreneurs,
mom and pops and individuals, thus creating a corporation driven internet, and by
trickle down effects, the entire world economy. No extra legal entity should
have the opportunity to take the law out of the courts and create its own court.
It breeds anarchy.
Again, there should be no preferential treatment of any
special interest. Limiting the number of TLD's is not the answer. New
TLD's have been added with no problem (ccTLDs) for years. The entire argument
is covered in Dr. Mueller's answers earlier in this post. It is the best I
have read thus far.
For those of you who are complaining of anonymous posts on
this forum. My name is Leah Gallegos.
||The TLD Lobby