Re: [wg-review] [DNDEF] short quizz 9,10

[Eric Dierker <Eric@HI-TEK.COM>]

This is awesome, I think of this as apples and oranges, you know tomato'
toma'to.
But it is very difficult to remember all the pieces.  There was some guy who
warned about puttin new wine in old skins.  Perhaps 2 thousand years ago he
was right
Kent Crispin wrote:


> On Wed, Feb 07, 2001 at 11:57:57AM -0800, Eric Dierker wrote:
> >
> >
> > Is the legal structure existing, now and at the time of creation of the
> > internet (I know this could be phrased as the beginning of the evolution
> > of the internet) should have been left alone (no UDRP) to handle
> > Internet Domain Name disputes.
> > I have not seen recorded history indicating that this was ever a
> > consideration within ICANN.
>
> ICANN had no real choice about implementing the UDRP -- it was part of
> the mandate given to it by the USGov in the White Paper:
>

BINGO -- ICANN IS A USG ENTITY.  Excuse me but look below who? BIUTB.

>
>     "The U.S.  Government will seek international support to call upon
>     the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) to initiate a
>     balanced and transparent process, which includes the participation
>     of trademark holders and members of the Internet community who are
>     not trademark holders, to (1) develop recommendations for a uniform
>     approach to resolving trademark/domain name disputes involving
>     cyberpiracy (as opposed to conflicts between trademark holders with
>     legitimate competing rights), (2) recommend a process for protecting
>     famous trademarks in the generic top level domains, and (3) evaluate
>     the effects, based on studies conducted by independent
>     organizations, such as the National Research Council of the National
>     Academy of Sciences, of adding new gTLDs and related dispute
>     resolution procedures on trademark and intellectual property
>     holders."
>
> and
>

this is not only ambiguous, it leads to cyber war one. ((note the small caps
so as not to draw attention to China's independent root server.))  Had
Verisign had proper respect for a superior culture this never woud have
happened.


>
>     Further, the U.S.  Government recommends that the new corporation
>     adopt policies whereby:

I was in Paris France when the "government "recommended" we stop protesting
against Marcos in Spain". They did not help my firiend's release and ultimate
death though we did help their cause.


       1) Domain registrants pay registration fees at the time of

>         registration or renewal and agree to submit infringing domain
>         names to the authority of a court of law in the jurisdiction in
>         which the registry, registry database, registrar, or the "A"
>         root servers are located.
>
>
>         2) Domain name registrants would agree, at the time of
>         registration or renewal, that in cases involving cyberpiracy or
>         cybersquatting (as opposed to conflicts between legitimate
>         competing rights holders), they would submit to and be bound by
>         alternative dispute resolution systems identified by the new
>         corporation for the purpose of resolving those conflicts.
>         Registries and Registrars should be required to abide by
>         decisions of the ADR system.
>
>
>         3) Domain name registrants would agree, at the time of
>         registration or renewal, to abide by processes adopted by the
>         new corporation that exclude, either pro-actively or
>         retroactively, certain famous trademarks from being used as
>         domain names (in one or more TLDs) except by the designated
>         trademark holder.
>
>         4) Nothing in the domain name registration agreement or in the
>         operation of the new corporation should limit the rights that
>         can be asserted by a domain name registrant or trademark owner
>         under national laws.
>

Can you spell adhesion contract?


>
> While the language is not expressed coercively, the USG did in fact call
> on WIPO, and, as the say, the rest is history.

Oh, Whatever' --- and so they say the future is tommorow's history and today
is now today's history. Your point exemplifies the fact of you old people not
getting it right.  This point will be more important than you think.  I love
the use of the word coercively.

> Moreover, the demand for a UDRP actually came from end-users;  people
> tend to forget that((( TM owners and businesses are end-users, but they
> are, and they are the registrars biggest customers.))) How prophetic and had
> they no clout bye-bye.   I should also note
> that while the attention is mostly attached to big TM owners, most TM
> owners are relatively small. (((((My mothers name is not small to me))))

You know I am tired of being referrred to as an end user, bottom dweller is so
much more appealining.

>
> > Havn't the courts pretty much said what you have said here,
> > Registry/Registrars are not to be liable for any type of infringment
> > problem caused by a registration?
> >
> > As a structure judgment in order to operate on the internet should
> > countries be contractually obligated to honor the USG's Intellectual
> > property decisions?
> > (DELLKOREA comes to mind) The answer seems obviously no, but I know that
> > that is a value judgment not a structure judgment.
>
> I don't know what you mean by a "structure judgement".  I certainly

structure: in this sense is easy and you know that, so I take your Rhetorical
question in like kind;  That which is required to stand upright.  Although on
the money end of things slithering is more economically appropriate.

>
> agree with the principle that US companies should have no particular
> advantage in any dispute involving a domain name, but I am very
> concerned that the US Congress doesn't share this opinion.

Right on, Right on, Right on.
See you on the morrow.

>
> --
> Kent Crispin                               "Be good, and you will be
> kent@songbird.com                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain

I remember when someone corrected your quote, note the semantics, not
likely,very much more likely there was a double negative, whom Sam allowed to
be exploited.

Soon to be released in paperpack.

Your contribution is amazing.

However your history is very sad indeed, they let you lay a record, and then
the deal was made with no record at all. But it is the record which shows the
existance(sp) of the absence of change, ("Melvin Belli" on evidence.)

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