Re: "so-called" keyword and layer 3

[James Seng/Personal <[e-mail]>]

For what it worth, I do think there might be some value WIPO input would
be useful, at least the perspective of how they see "identifiers" (legal
terms, translated to "names" in engineer-talk).

But we should consider their requirements as we would for end-users.

-James Seng

> > If we do not give a specific group an authority to decide who can
get,
> > let me handle "overseer" issue in an extremely dirty way. Let's add
> > "overseer" as a facet. Then, we have { name string, industry
category,
> > country, overseer } tuple. If overseer is "trademark office" then
all
> > four attribute values are used to find a unique trademark from
trademark
> > db. Else if overseer is "none" (or "keyword" ?) then "industry
category"
> > field will be empty or not used even if supplied. Do you like it ?
>
> Well, I do not want to be the one to cause a dirty solution... My sole
point
> was that there is a manifest conflict between the desire not to
involve
> organizations like WIPO, and proposals that have been done and rely on
this
> organization's work. I don't think adding an overseer will help.
>
> YA
>
>