Re: [ga] New TLD Agreements

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Sotiris and all remaining assembly members,

Sotiropoulos wrote:

> Jeff Williams wrote:
> >
> > WXW, Michael and all remaining assembly members,
> >
> >   I must also agree with William on this one.  The UDRP is an abomination
> >
> > of gargantuan purporting.  It is extra-legal, it thwarts due process, it
> > has less and less support on a global basis by stakeholders.  The
> > evidence
> > is simply overwhelming.  The UDRP should be suspended until reforms
> > are incorporated or done away with all together.
>
> I'm not convinced that the UDRP should be done
> away with completely. However, I have repeatedly
> called for a moratorium on UDRP cases NOT
> involving coined words.  I think that this should
> be seriously considered by ICANN as a face-saving
> move which would do much for its currently
> tarnished image among the ICW.

  This is one other approach to addressing the many problems
with the UDRP.  But it only addresses one of the problems
with the UDRP.  Hence our call for a suspension of the
UDRP process and consequently reform to the Registrar
contracts, and now it seems the Registry contract agreements,
even though the current UDRP has no language to address
Registries for new TLD's...  It seems that even the ICANN
BoD doesn't understand the UDRP language....

>  No trademark
> holder of a generic term (or any other dictionary
> term) is de facto entitled to a domain name!  The
> contention that this is so is ludicrous and is
> totally responsible for the bad press the UDRP has
> received.

  Agreed.  And this area was argued vercifiously before the current
UDRP was adopted.  It has also been debated and discussed on the
NCDNHC WG list dealing with this area.  (See relative Archives)

>  When a trademark is registered, there
> is no concommitant "rights" to a domain name
> granted with said registration!  A trademark is an
> exclusive right to use a word in a specific
> commercial context and NOT in all commerce
> generally!

  Also correct.  This is why there are "Classes" of TM's.

> This has somehow been
> overlooked/ignored and is the reason for the
> mounting (and already great) discontent with the
> ICANN and UDRP among the ICW.  WIPO must be
> reigned in or they will ultimately discredit ICANN
> completely.  I REITERATE MY CALL FOR A MORATORIUM
> ON ALL CURRENT/PENDING/FUTURE UDRP CASES THAT DO
> NOT INVOLVE EXPLICITLY COINED WORDS.  I believe
> that in cases of coined words the UDRP is indeed
> useful, but any other application of such a
> "policy" is detrimental and highly injurious to
> the interests of the ICW and ICANN.

  ALso agreed here as well.  In fact I would carry this statement
out a bit further.  The UDRP in it's current form has been, is currently
and shall remain injurious to any and all stakeholders of  "Common Marks"
or otherwise DN's.

>
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Sotiris Sotiropoulos
>         Hermes Network, Inc.
> --
> This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 118k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208


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