RE: [discuss] Trademarks and WIPO issues

["Roeland M.J. Meyer" <rmeyer@mhsc.com>]

I DO have a problem with NSI's DDRP and now ICANN is asking us to do
something that is many times worse. Doesn't everyone see this? We
shouldn't be touching this with 10-foot poles, any more than NSI should.
There is adequate existing law that is actually cheaper to enforce than
some lawyer-job-security-scam called arbitration board. I've been in
arbitration and I've won, the victory was questionable. I'd rather have
been in court. A lawyer's idea of mediation is spreading the misery, not
doing what's right and arbitration is about mediation.

<Joke>
Two lawyers at an arbitration hearing; Lawyers 2, plaintiff and
defendant both 0.
</Joke>

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-discuss@dnso.org
> [mailto:owner-discuss@dnso.org]On Behalf Of
> d3nnis
> Sent: Monday, June 28, 1999 7:02 AM
> To: Jeff Williams; discuss@dnso.org
> Cc: d3nnis; commerce; emaxwell@doc.gov; bburr@ntia.doc.gov; William
> Daley
> Subject: Re: [discuss] Trademarks and WIPO issues
>
>
> 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
> >
>
>