June 2009 - At-Large - lists.icann.org

Weekly posting summary for alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org
by Thomas Narten June 12, 2009

June 12, 2009

Total of 2 messages in the last 7 days. script run at: Fri Jun 12 00:53:03 EDT 2009 Messages | Bytes | Who --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 50.00% | 1 | 59.95% | 6165 | narten at us.ibm.com 50.00% | 1 | 40.05% | 4119 | derek at aa419.org --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 100.00% | 2 |100.00% | 10284 | Total

1 0

Appeals Court reverses CFIT vs Verisign decision
by Derek Smythe June 7, 2009

June 7, 2009

http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2009/06/05/07-16151.pdf Also http://www.thedomains.com/2009/06/05/appeals-court-reverses-allows-suit-aga…

1 0

Weekly posting summary for alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org
by Thomas Narten June 5, 2009

June 5, 2009

Total of 22 messages in the last 7 days. script run at: Fri Jun 5 00:53:03 EDT 2009 Messages | Bytes | Who --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 18.18% | 4 | 16.41% | 25664 | alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca 13.64% | 3 | 16.03% | 25069 | patrick at vande-walle.eu 9.09% | 2 | 10.29% | 16094 | hongxueipr at gmail.com 9.09% | 2 | 9.83% | 15366 | bfausett at internet.law.pro 9.09% | 2 | 8.97% | 14034 | ocl at gih.com 4.55% | 1 | 6.06% | 9470 | karl at cavebear.com 4.55% | 1 | 5.39% | 8434 | isolatedn at gmail.com 4.55% | 1 | 4.66% | 7282 | derek at aa419.org 4.55% | 1 | 4.61% | 7215 | evan at telly.org 4.55% | 1 | 4.56% | 7126 | carlton.samuels at uwimona.edu.jm 4.55% | 1 | 3.52% | 5512 | carlosaguirre62 at hotmail.com 4.55% | 1 | 3.44% | 5379 | narten at us.ibm.com 4.55% | 1 | 3.11% | 4871 | michele at blacknight.ie 4.55% | 1 | 3.11% | 4865 | roberto at icann.org --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 100.00% | 22 |100.00% | 156381 | Total

1 0

Re: [At-Large] [GTLD-WG] IRT working group report
by Alan Greenberg June 3, 2009

June 3, 2009

Based on the case that Roberto made reference to, the (or an) origin that gives you good protection is India. Alan At 02/06/2009 06:34 PM, Carlton Samuels wrote: >From: Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels(a)uwimona.edu.jm> >Date: Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 10:38 AM >Subject: Re: [GTLD-WG] IRT Report Draft Now Available >Goes to show how "navel gazing" can come from all types of folks! > >For I cannot even begin to understand how creating a second-class, separate >and unequal protection for marks is good public policy! > >Actually, I lie......I can easily understand.......I will give my right arm >its bound up somewhat with place of origin....!! > >CAS

1 0

Re: [At-Large] [GTLD-WG] IRT working group report
by Alan Greenberg June 1, 2009

June 1, 2009

At 31/05/2009 11:14 PM, Hong Xue wrote: > > This may be correct with respect to registrants and privacy. I am not an > > expert in these matters, but it seems to me that from the point of view of > > not confronting users with domain names that are easily confusingly similar > > to others, the needs of real end-users and IP holders may well be quite > > complementary. > >Neither IP extremism nor anti-IP extremism is in the interests of >users. Theoretically trademark protection is for users first and >competition second. Trademark counterfeiting is subject to criminal >punishment for it is deceptive to the public as well as infringes the >private right of the trademark owner. So the issue is reasonableness. > >I'm not sure if Alan is referring to "domain name law" (perhaps >existing in some jurisdictions, Canada? ). If we are the same page and >discussing confusing similarity in the ambit of trademark law, then I >doubt the reasonableness of precluding an applied TLD string for it is >doomed "easily confusing" to users--it's not been used (let alone in >commerce). Even if such precluding could exist, it should be limited >to a small scope and unfortunately there is no globally recognized >well-know mark list to define that scope. > >Hong I started out saying I wasn't an expert (which you are! ;-) ), and I certainly was not commenting on the specifics of the IRT recommendations. I was just reminding people that we should look at the merits and not react to who has written the proposal (in line with the theory of your second sentence). Alan

1 0