[discuss] Re: Anti-cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act

[william@dso.net (William X. Walsh)]

On Tue, 29 Jun 1999 17:34:29 -0700, Kent Crispin <kent@SONGBIRD.COM>
wrote:
>
>> If you would like to consider domain names as interchangeable kinds of
>> things, then fine.  In that case the whole argument that trademark holders
>> are harmed falls to the ground.
>
>Karl, I am not making *any* arguments here, and from what I have seen
>of the proposed law, I don't favor it.  I am merely pointing out that
>you are not using logic or reasoning in your "argument".
>
>The fact is that domain names are new and have unique
>characteristics, and their status under the law is not yet clear.

BINGO!
Kent summed it up "their status under the law is not yet clear."

BTW, this will be my new quote in my .sigfile

This one comment sums up the VERY reason why mandatory arbitration in
domain names has NO business being considered seriously.  In your own
words, Kent, "the law is not yet clear."


--
William X. Walsh
General Manager, DSo Internet Services
Email: william@dso.net  Fax:(209) 671-7934

"The fact is that domain names are new and have unique
characteristics, and their status under the law is not yet clear." 
--Kent Crispin (June 29th, 1999)