- From: Michael Shapiro <mshapiro@ncsa.uiuc.edu>
- Date: Tue, 28 Mar 1995 14:07:48 -0600 (CST)
- To: jcurran@nic.near.net (John Curran)
- Cc: mshapiro@ncsa.uiuc.edu, uri@bunyip.com
John Curran wrote: |Is there an implicit assumption regarding the relationship between |the "ownership" of a given DNS domain and an associated subdomain |under the "path.urn" space? Is there explicitly no relationship? | |It might be a good idea to have some discussion in the document about |the operational and administrative impacts of this mapping approach. Michael Shapiro wrote: |I'm uncertain as to the content of such a discussion. Would it be a |suggestion for the top level names (or perhaps even one or two levels |down). How did the existing set of DNS domains get instituted? How |would this discussion diverge from the (existing) discussions about |hostnames? John Curran wrote: |The existing set of DNS domains are allocated based on policies which |are currently undergoing legal scrutiny with respect to the trademark |infringement. We need to consider before recommending the establishment |of a second name space which will certainly garner similiar actions... This is an issue I was unaware of. Can you elaborate on these legal issues? Would there be trouble if someone used "kleenex" in the name of a document? (e.g. /A/B/C/mymail/kleenex/msg.1) Is this only a problem for DNS names? Is this an objection to even considering the path scheme? Or is this a problem for any naming scheme that allowed trademarked words to appear as part of the name. And even so, is this enough of a reason to disallow such a naming scheme? When does trademark infringement occur? -- Michael Shapiro mshapiro@ncsa.uiuc.edu NCSA (217) 244-6642 605 E Springfield Ave. RM 152CAB fax: (217) 333-5973 Champaign, IL 61820
Received on Tuesday, 28 March 1995 15:11:37 UTC