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

["Miles B. Whitener" <mbw@i-theta.com>]

As with other responses, I can't read everything you wrote below
right now.
But it sounds like you are saying the US Government is the cause
of this.
This is not too surprising.  The last president put many people
into power who had little experience and whose main
"qualification" was a socialist / globalist political agenda.
What people don't understand is that the recent US Govt.
policies, while seeming to placate socialist and globalist
sentiments, only ultimately have resulted in chaos.
Many will disagree, but globalist policies are not even good for
global TLDs.
Many will say "we can and must work through the problems; we will
succeed if you are patient".
Each nation needs to protect its sovereign interests, and to
represent the good of its own citizens before any other concern.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Kent Crispin" <kent@songbird.com>
To: <wg-review@dnso.org>
Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2001 8:46 PM
Subject: Re: [wg-review] [DNDEF] short quizz 9,10


> 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:
>
>     "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
>
>     Further, the U.S.  Government recommends that the new
corporation
>     adopt policies whereby:
>
>
>
>         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.
>
> While the language is not expressed coercively, the USG did in
fact call
> on WIPO, and, as the say, the rest is history.
>
> 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.  I should
also note
> that while the attention is mostly attached to big TM owners,
most TM
> owners are relatively small.
>
> > 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
> 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.
>
> --
> Kent Crispin                               "Be good, and you
will be
> kent@songbird.com                           lonesome." -- Mark
Twain
> --
> 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
>

--
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