Re: [ga] icannatlarge.com

[Joop Teernstra <terastra@terabytz.co.nz>]

At 03:27 p.m. 18/09/2002 -0400, John Berryhill Ph.D. J.D. wrote:

>Greetings Joanna,
>
>It is a very simple issue.
>
>Does ICANNatlarge have a license to use ICANN's trademarks?  Your answer, in
>about 500 or so words, is "no."

John,

I did not read  that in Joanna's recite of icannatlarge.com' s history. 
What she makes clear is that ICANN was aware and has condoned the use of 
its name.
I am surprised that you look at this issue in such a  myopic and legalistic 
way.

Icann is not a trading company.  The registration of its "trademark" has 
more to do with registrars who may claim to be "icann accredited" to sell 
Domain Name registrations, than with an organization of individuals, most 
of which still have a letter in their possession that declares them 
....icann members.

The icannatlarge.com website was finished in time to be brought to the 
attention of the Board in Accra. At that time the homepage carried  an 
explanation of the logo that said that the logo would be removed if 
ICANN  would object to it.

Instead, the Board issued a resolution encouraging the formation and 
self-organization of its At Large membership (even though it rejected the 
Board member election as proposed by its At Large Study committee).
After Accra, the website carried on, but added a computer-lib symbol to the 
ICANN logo that was later removed for lack of support among the membership.

<snip>

>ICANNatlarge.com is not authorized by or affiliated with ICANN, and its use
>of ICANN trademarks is misleading, deceptive and dilutive.  You either have a
>license or you don't, and it is clear that you don't.

That is not clear at all. Mr Touton and the ICANN Board and staff has been 
fully aware of the existence and (changing) looks of the site and it is 
ICANN's silence that  has sanctioned the use of the logo.

*One* letter from ICANN, telling us that it does not sanction the use of 
its name and logo by the icannatlarge.com website would have its webmaster 
take it down.
Instantly and with as much publicity as such an  event of dissociation 
would warrant.

The question is not if ICANN has sanctioned this use; the question, now 
being decided by the icannatlarge voting members, is whether *the members* 
still sanction it.

>But, keep up the good work, since if ICANN does not act to enforce its
>federally registered trademarks, then it will lose them.  In ten years, we'll
>all be ICANN.

This is the dilution you speak of. ICANN needs to be "diluted". In a 
political not  commercial context, it is called outreach. As long as either 
ICANN or our members do not say "stop that", we are still waving Icann's flag.

Misleading and deceptive?  That is an absurd accusation.

Any good read of our website makes it abundantly clear what we are about. 
We sign up and organize members for ICANN At Large in accordance with the 
Board's invitation.

  We want our elected representatives to be part of the ICANN 
decisionmaking structure.

If there is anything  misleading and deceptive, it has been the gradual 
abandoning of ICANN's founding principle to be a membership organization.




--Joop Teernstra LL.M.--
   initial webmaster
www.icannatlarge.com
Sign up and spread the word.


--
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