Re: FYI: trademark names in URLs, URNs, and email
Masataka Ohta <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> Wed, 15 May 1996 01:32 UTC
Received: from ietf.cnri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa05174;
14 May 96 21:32 EDT
Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa05170;
14 May 96 21:32 EDT
Received: from services.Bunyip.COM by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa24718;
14 May 96 21:32 EDT
Received: (from daemon@localhost) by services.bunyip.com (8.6.10/8.6.9) id
VAA03813 for uri-out; Tue, 14 May 1996 21:15:13 -0400
Received: from mocha.bunyip.com (mocha.Bunyip.Com [192.197.208.1]) by
services.bunyip.com (8.6.10/8.6.9) with SMTP id VAA03808 for
<uri@services.bunyip.com>; Tue, 14 May 1996 21:15:10 -0400
Received: from [131.112.32.132] by mocha.bunyip.com with SMTP
(5.65a/IDA-1.4.2b/CC-Guru-2b)
id AA27538 (mail destined for uri@services.bunyip.com);
Tue, 14 May 96 21:15:07 -0400
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: Masataka Ohta <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
Message-Id: <199605150105.KAA09946@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
Received: by necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp (8.6.11/TM2.1)
id KAA09946; Wed, 15 May 1996 10:05:43 +0900
Subject: Re: FYI: trademark names in URLs, URNs, and email
To: Craig A Summerhill <craig@cni.org>
Date: Wed, 15 May 96 10:05:41 JST
Cc: uri@bunyip.com
In-Reply-To: <9605141600.AA22002@a.cni.org>;
from "Craig A Summerhill" at May 14, 96 12:00 pm
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL11]
X-Orig-Sender: owner-uri@bunyip.com
Precedence: bulk
> > > A bill that is rapidly making its way through the California > > > Legislature would impose fines and legal fees on Internet users whose > > > USER-ID, domain name or email address happens to be a registered > > > trade name or trademark. > > > > Seemingly, now is the time to move IANA outside of California > > or USA. > > > > What can the California Legislature do agaist it? > > > > Masataka Ohta > > Unfortunately, it is not as simple as all that. Traditionally, the > California legislature serves as a good litmus test for national laws > in the United States. Nearly all legislation which is passed in the > California legislature is ultimately introduced in the United States > Congress in the same or similar format shortly thereafter. In fact, > there is already *similar* legislation in committee in the U.S. Senate > at this time. I still can't understand what is the problem. People and legislatures in US have all the right to have any strange local rules, unless (or, sometimes, even if) it contradicts with very basic human rights. So, just move IANA outside of USA. Of course, US local people still have all the right to act against local rules. But, please do it US local, not in IETF. Masataka Ohta
- FYI: trademark names in URLs, URNs, and email Larry Masinter
- Re: FYI: trademark names in URLs, URNs, and email Craig A Summerhill
- Re: FYI: trademark names in URLs, URNs, and email Masataka Ohta
- Re: FYI: trademark names in URLs, URNs, and email Masataka Ohta