On Sat, 2003-05-10 at 20:17, Roger B.A. Klorese wrote:
> Loren Stocker wrote:
>
> >Roger,
> >
> >IP Claims are valid prior to the drop, so there's not reason to give IP
> >holders anymore power than they already have. In fact, domains are not class
> >specific. Trademarks are. In fairness, there should be no superior rights to
> >anyone without famous marks (i.e. marks that transcends class like Coke, ATT,
> >IBM, etc.)
> >
>
> I disagree -- while trademarks are class-specific, what I proposed --
> that if there were multpile valid IP claims they would be treated as a
> higher-priority pool from which an owner would be chosen at random --
> handles that.
Again, presupposing that they should be given higher priority.
There is nothing inherent in trademark protection that gives them ANY
such priority, nor should there be. They have VASTLY more protection
under the law than they should have already, and you want to expand the
protections to include even more supralegal protections than ICANN
already gives them.
> As to random, that's the point. The drop -- now in it's own non-interferring
> >pool -- allows a random assignment to any monkey who clicks the firstest and
> >the mostest.
> >
>
> That's not random -- that rewards the first one in.
It's vastly more "random" than WLS, and those are the two options.
Anything else is a pipe dream by anti-free market socialists like
yourself. (Mr Klorese has made his socialistic anti-free market views
plain on this list in the past, and has made it clear that anything that
benefits the free-market on the internet is bad in his opinion).
-- domainwhiz <domainwhiz@yahoo.com>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Tue Oct 19 2004 - 23:37:43 EDT