Re: [ga-udrp] Background Documents

[Eric Dierker <eric@hi-tek.com>]

I have done a reasonable amount of research on this, and I feel like I must be
missing something.  It appears to me that the UDRP and the below cited act are
only really supported by IPOs (no not public offerings but Intellectual Property
lobbying groups).  I find little to no competing and well organized opposing
interests.  Yes some good intellectuals and good lawyers like Mr. Lovell but no
actual force opposing the lobbyists.

Can one of you fine people give me a good argument for the UDRP that is not
strictly for the benefit of the IP constituency.  I for one like existing laws
and would like to see them enforced and if an UDRP did this I would be all for
it, otherwise it looks like a mechanism for circumvention of Sovereign and
legitmate laws.

Sincerely,
Eric

DannyYounger@cs.com wrote:

> S 1255 IS, Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act.
> Re: criminalization of the unauthorized use of trademarked names in Internet
> domain names.
> Sponsor: Sen. Spencer Abraham (R-MI).
> Date Introduced: June 21, 1999.
> http://www.techlawjournal.com/cong106/cybersquat/s1255is.htm
> --
> This message was passed to you via the ga-udrp@dnso.org list.
> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga-udrp" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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