Re: PAB "MoU-Lite"

Robert F. Connelly (rconnell@psi-japan.com)
Sat, 14 Feb 1998 07:58:54 +0900

At 09:57 AM 2/13/98 -0800, Dan Busarow wrote:
>On Thu, 12 Feb 1998, Kent Crispin wrote:
>> VII.  A procedure for resolving trademark disputes should be
>> established by contract among registrars of second level domains in
>> each of the gTLDs that will (a) strike a balance between domain name
>> holders and the owners of trademark rights and (b) offer an efficient
>> and inexpensive means of dispute resolution without supplanting or
>> interfering with the jurisdiction of national courts or the rights of
>> Internet users to have resort to the courts.
>
>I think we really need to distance ourselves from the trademark
>issue.  While we can't pretend it doesn't exist we certainly should
>not have a policy of our own other than obeying courts and arbiters.
>As an alternative:
>
>VII.  Disputes between trademark owners and second level domain holders
>have and will continue to be raised.  These are legal disputes and
>have no technical solution.  All registrars will accept the decision
>of a competent court of law and follow the courts instructions.  All
>registrars will also accept the decision of a recognized arbitration
>process and follow the arbiter's instructions.

Dear Dan and Kent:

I have been watching this discussion of MoU Lite. I would not favour any
diminution of the text in the original gTLD-MoU on the trademark issue.

Regards,
BobC