Re: [discuss] Trademarks and WIPO issues

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Dennis and all,

  Dennis, I understand your point entirely and in this instance given
the demeanor of this ICANN (Initial?) Interim Board, that is not an
elected body, I can agree.  However I must not also that history
has shown us that any body, organization, or even individual that
has the political equity can propose, or in effect, write law, international
or otherwise.

  As I stated, though in a slightly different context, I DO object to ANY
body, individual, organization of any kind doing so in the names of
others to which they have no mandate.  This is where ICANN is
in fault, and where the NTIA, as well as the DOC itself are
misusing or refusing to act in that accordance.

d3nnis wrote:

> Hi Jeff --
>
> I have a real problem with ICANN writing  international law, just
> as I would have a problem with NSI writing US law.
>
> Calling it a contract matter doesn't make me feel better. Many
> of us have ancestors whose rights were once  a matter of contract and
> property law before they were upgraded to coverage by the
> Bill of Rights.
>
> >Dennis
>
> ----------
> > Dennis and all,
> >
> >   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:
> > >
> > > <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.
> >
> > Regards,
>
> >
> > --
> > 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
> >

Regards,

--
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