[35426] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: new.net
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (richb@pioneer.ci.net)
Thu Mar 8 18:06:47 2001
From: richb@pioneer.ci.net
Message-Id: <200103082259.RAA05979@envoy.ci.net>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.05.10103082209320.4043-100000@matthew.uk1.vbc.net> from
Jim Dixon at "Mar 8, 2001 10:11:35 pm"
To: nanog@merit.edu
Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2001 17:59:06 -0500 (EST)
Cc: jdd@vbc.net
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
Jim Dixon wrote:
> First I'll remind you that there is a world outside of the United
> States. Then I'll ask: are you at all serious? You expect to ban
> UK companies from registering in .co.uk?
Last I checked, dot-com was never a US-specific domain. I don't see
anything US-centric in my posting, other than the reference to the US
PTO.
As for my being serious--no, a ban would be silly. But it *is* food
for thought when contemplating the trend toward globalism over the
past ten years. When starting a new corporate entity, should you come
up with a name which is unique only to your own state or country? Or
should you do a global name search to define a new one and gain global
trademark protection for it?
If the dot-com registry were operated efficiently and backed by a
trademark authority that had respect throughout the world, then it would
be less costly to set up and protect a new corporate name.
-rich
