Re[2]: [ga] serious participation in ICANN processes

[k@widgital.com (Kristy McKee)]

Mistakes happen.

When naturalhealth.com was in dispute, our website never went down.

:)

At 01:02 PM 4/6/2001 -0700, William X. Walsh wrote:
>Hello Kristy,
>
>Friday, April 06, 2001, 1:50:46 PM, Kristy McKee wrote:
>
> > The Internet worked better when there was a monopoly.
> > The rules were
> > simple:  first come first serve.
> > Problems were easily resolved over
> > trademark and copyright issues within the courts, etc.  I think ICANN is
> > several steps backwards.
>
>That's not entirely accurate.  NSI's flawed domain dispute policy
>enabled a trademark holder to get a domain actually shut off until the
>respondent actually won in court.
>
>I don't consider that to be preferable, while I also agree the UDRP is
>fatally flawed, at the least it doesn't turn off a domain until a
>decision has been made, even if those decisions are being made in a
>manner inconsistent with law and by a method which gives automatic
>preference to the complainant.
>
>I also take exception with Roberto's giving ICANN credit for
>"breaking" NSI's monopoly.  That was going to happen regardless, the
>green paper and white paper processes led to that.  ICANN just simply
>assisted along a process that they didn't initiate nor decide on.
>
>--
>Best regards,
>  William                            mailto:william@userfriendly.com

--
This message was passed to you via the ga-full@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html