Re: [ga] ICANN benefits

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

Ah give me a break,

The UDRP does not give any credence to over two hundred years of American and
before that English Jurisprudence.  The UDRP does not take into account the
international standard of categories. Sun for one is sun for all, and that is
worthless.
The UDRP is a license to Hijack, plain and simple and it is by history a deal with
the IP group so that they ICANN could get away with deals like Versign without
debating against the power of the IP lawyers, Why else did they not weigh in
against it. Does this tie in with the WHOIS violations, you bet it does! Same group
same quiet.

Don't get me wrong I have filed for and gotten trademarks but this is different.
If someone wants to debate, protection for the purpose of promoting
entreprenueralism, I am good to go but this is not the case.  It creates the exact
opposite.

Jeff Williams wrote:

> Sandy and all remaining assembly members,
>
> Sandy Harris wrote:
>
> > Dave Crocker wrote:
> >
> > > The law in most countries "institutionalizes trademark favortism".  It has
> > > done that rather longer than ICANN has been around...
> >
> > However, it also protects multiple uses of a trademark. Sun Microsystems,
> > Sun Oil, the Sun and Surf Resort, ... and provides procedural safeguards
> > for the rights of the alleged violator.
>
>   Yes, but a domain name of sun.org or sun.biz is not necessarily violating any
> TM's that say Sun Oil or Sun Microsystems may hold, as the class of mark
> is the distinction.  Yet, the UDRP would and has differed on this distinction.
>
> >
> >
> > > If you mean that the UDRP provides ADDITIONAL benefits to trademark
> > > holders, well, that becomes a finer point of debate.
> >
> > It isn't entirely clear to me what the URDP was designed to accomplish, but
> > it seems cleat that in practice at least some decisions (bodacioustatas leaps
> > to mind) gave benefits to trademark owners that go way beyong anything they'd
> > be legally entitled to in any juritiction I know of.
>
>   Well I am a little worried when it comes to Bodacioustatas dot anything
> starts leaping, if you know what I mean?  >;)
>
>   None the less, your point is well taken.  Some of us have argued strenuously
> that the UDRP is "Extralegal" in its effect and reach.  This has proven to be
> well founded in some instances with some cases, as many of us already
> are or have become aware of...  Hence it is obvious, and always has been
> that the UDRP is a tool for the large IP interests, and those that wish to
> take advantage of startup ecommerce companies to steal DN's that are
> or were legitimately registered.  It is also relevant that the UDRP, was
> not a consensus based decision by the than ICANN BoD in it's present
> form.
>
>   Given all this, it is I believe safe to say that the UDRP is definitely NOT
> one of ICANN shining accomplishments, in fact that contrary would be
> accurate.
>
> >
> >
> > > As has been noted frequently, the UDRP needs enhancement.  But let's not
> > > attribute more precedent to it or ICANN than is valid.
> >
> > Specifically, it needs better protection for the domain holders who are
> > attacked using it.
>
>   How very true.
>
> >
> > --
> > 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