I see nothing wrong with ICANN proposing, text or the direction
of international
conventions", as you put it. But I DO see something wrong
with ICANN
doing so in the Stakeholders name's. They have no such mandate,
nor are they likely to get one anytime soon.
What is appalling and amazing to me anyway, is that Becky Burr
and
the NTIA is allowing the ICANN to use the stakeholders names in this
manner, knowing that the ICANN does not have such a mandate..
d3nnis wrote:
Roeland wrote:Regards,<I think current law is sufficient. A minimal policy, under the law, is
<FCFS and ALWAYS follow court-orders from competent jurisdiction. The
<minimal acceptable additional requirement is to require proof of
<trademark before instantiation. Anything else usurps the law and becomes
<extra-legal, therefore unenforcable.I agree. Case law keeps changing from day-to-day, and Congress has
further amendments to the Lanham Act before it right now.ICANN should not be proposing the text or the direction of international
conventions.
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number: 972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208