Re: [ga-udrp] Background Documents

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

Thank you Chris,

If we look at Jeff's earlier response we can see the "spin" which was placed to
make the rules palatable.  Boy I know I get confused when I read
*anytrademark*sucks, I think that is where I go to get products.

Your point of  of comment gathering is right on point and so the questionnaire
is vital.  Right now I know what we do not need is a moderate.  I believe the
Lawyer concept should be placed into the expert category and we should gather
the comments from as many as is helpful.  I would also like to see a survey of
all of those *consumers who have been confused*.

Sincerely,
Eric

NameCritic wrote:

> Exactly. And no there is no strong opposing force. That is why the GA has
> one vote and all those who wish it to remain and remain the way it is have
> all the rest. The task force says it will try to reach a consensus. But look
> at the members of the Task Force. Is this a Task Force designed for
> Consensus? It says if no consensus can be reached it will come down to a
> vote. Again look at who is represented on the task force. The vote is
> predetermined.
>
> All I see one can do there is to get comments on the record that the GA
> wants to put on the record.
>
> Chris McElroy aka NameCritic
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Eric Dierker" <eric@hi-tek.com>
> To: <DannyYounger@cs.com>
> Cc: <ga-udrp@dnso.org>
> Sent: Monday, July 02, 2001 6:14 PM
> Subject: Re: [ga-udrp] Background Documents
>
> > 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
> >
>
> --
> 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