Re: Who really benefits from 60-day period?

[Daniel Kalchev <daniel@digsys.bg>]

In message <199701122259.WAA00969@salsa.gih.co.uk>, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond w
rites:

>In line with some of the IAHC recommendations, why do we not confine this
>60 day period for registration to the .tm.int , or the respective
>.tm.<iso3166> domains ? We'll end-up with a very stable hierarchy of
>trademark addresses. At the same time, there should be no 60-day period for
>registration of domains under other gTLDs, thus keeping in line with the
>fast-changing nature and evolution of the Internet.
>Ad to this, an (official) suggestion by the IAHC that trademark issues 
>cannot be addressed under gTLDs other than .tm.int and .tm.<iso3166>.

This is good alternative. It is likely that will be much more in line with 
current procedures/trends in many countries. Such separation would also make 
it more clear that Internet domain names have primary purpose of being used 
for addressing in Internet - while trademark names do not.

An good side effect would be the introduction of the (mandatory?) <tm> suffix 
to the trademark names, such as www.Microsoft.tm.COM. Things might get even 
better if a .tm TLD even existed! :-)

>Could that work ? My fear is that trademark issues are a can of worms
>(look at the amount of mail it has generated in this small discussion
>group) and we should try and confine this can of worms to one top level
>domain.

At least, if this is considered, it will be much easily accepted by TLD 
registries worldwide. In some contries trademark issues are much larger can of 
worms than in the US, due to artifical or no laws in that countries.

Daniel Kalchev
BG-NIC, BG TLDA