From: Les Bishop <labishop@fedex.com>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(WEBMASTER)
Date: 4/3/98 9:36am
Subject: Public comment on Technical Management of Internet Names and Addresse

We just became aware of the proposed rule on this subject and would like
to provide the following brief comments from the perspective of an owner of
famous trademarks.

Contrary to the comments in the discussion draft, we have found
trademark/domain name disputes to be a major problem on the Internet. We have
encountered several instances of third parties registring exact, and almost
exact, duplicates of Federal Express marks. While Network Solutions already
has a dispute resolution process, it is essentially useless as it will only
help in cases where the name is exactly the same as a registered mark. For
example, Network Solutions does not consider 800-Go-Fedex to be the same as
Federal Express's registered mark 1-800-Go-Fedex. Therefore, their dispute
resolution process is essentially useless.

We agree that applicants for domain names should be required to execute an
affidavit that they know of no other entity who may have rights in a proposed
mark, but it must go beyond a respresentation that the proposed domain name is
not identical to another's mark.

We also suggest that a use requirement be put in place. For example,
under current U.S. trademark law, an applicant can apply for a name without
using it, but must show use within a designated time. We are encountering
domain name holders who have registered multiple names and intend to hold them
forever without actually using them for personal or business purposes.
We propose that a use requirement also be instituted in the domain
name registration process such that the use being made of the domain name be
reviewed after four to six months. If the name is not being used
for a purpose other than reserving the name it would become available for
registration again.

Les Bishop
Senior Attorney
Federal Express Corporation

CC: NTIADC40.SMTP40("Private_User@fedex.com")

###

From: Jay Fenello <Jay@Iperdome.com>
To: Recipient list suppressed
Date: 4/8/98 9:16pm
Subject: Re: How many angels ...

FYI:

>Date: Wed, 08 Apr 1998 18:12:37 -0400
>From: Jay Fenello <Jay@Iperdome.com>
>Subject: Re: How many angels ...
>Cc: DOMAIN-POLICY@LISTS.INTERNIC.NET
>
>Hi Alexander,
>
>While your position has some merits, I personally
>think you are over-estimating the current evolution
>of authority and public infrastructure on the Internet.
>
>There is no single authority for the cyber frontier.
>There never has been. One of the results of the Green
>Paper process will be to remedy this situation.
>
>There is no public infrastructure for the DNS system.
>There are 13 root servers, some of which are funded,
>some of which are volunteered. Collectively, these
>servers are *not* coordinated by any single authority.
>
>[That's why many have suggested that the root servers
>should be under contract to the new, non-profit
>corporation. Some have even suggested that these
>servers should be under contract immediately, to
>prevent any further "tests" that could fracture
>the Internet.]
>
>So, in many ways, the new frontier we call the Internet
>is very much like the wild west. And just like the early
>"pioneers" faced hardship, unlawfullness, attempted theft,
>and even death (business failure), so to have the early
>"pioneers" in the new domain name industry.
>
>Historically and culturally, the United States has
>encouraged this spirit and innovation. That's one
>reason why the FCC has historically recognized and
>rewarded companies that have been "pioneers" in
>other industries.
>
>In closing, we are truley breaking new ground in a
>new frontier. We must choose wisely, for the decisions
>we are about to make will set precedents that will be
>with us for a very long time.
>
>Regards,
>
>Jay Fenello
>President, Iperdome, Inc.
>404-250-3242 http://www.iperdome.com

###