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

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

Both before and after the establishment of the UDRP our group was
dragged into federal court on three occassions regarding internet domain
name disputes.  We were being sued.  On each matter we walked away
either richer or even.  The only real problem was laws requiring us to
hire a lawyer.  Basically the lawyers did not understand the problem and
neither did the judges.  However a forum was provided for the
participants to get together and work out the differences.

Once we were sued because the email address of the registrant was hosted
by us.
I still remember the look on the magistrates face after we explained
what that meant and the lawyer on the other side tried to coninue to
argue for our liability.  This Lawyer lectured on intellectual property
law, and reportedly charged his clients over 100k for the matter which
resulted in his paying our costs.

The point is we do not need the UDRP.  The courts are better at it.

Now with that said, the courts may want the UDRP to lessen their work
load.

Sincerely,

"Miles B. Whitener" wrote:

> ...
> > > But it sounds like you are saying the US Government is the
> cause
> > > of this.
> >
> > No, actually it is the end-users of the DNS who are the cause
> of this.
> > The White paper was the result of a public process in which
> many
> > comments were collected, and the clauses in the White Paper
> were put
> > there because that was the sentiment expressed in many
> compelling
> > comments.  There are in fact *very* good arguments for a UDRP;
> there
> > is no real question as to whether there should be one.  There
> are
>
> I guess I disagree.
>
> > questions as to whether there are flaws in the current
> process -- most
> > people believe there are, and that the UDRP needs adjustment of
> some
> > sort.
>
> I guess I think the adjustment in this case would be more like a
> deletion.
>
> >
> > The UDRP came from end-user demand.  Some people find it
> inconvenient to
> > consider TM owners as end-users like themselves, but "them's
> the facts".
>
> TM owners have their own interests.  I believe trademark law
> generically covers lots of kinds of uses of a name.  If it
> somehow did not cover DNS entries, that would have been a flaw in
> TM law, not in DNS policy.
>
> >
> > > 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.
> >
> > Perhaps true, but in the context it is a singularly shallow and
>
> I disagree again.  My comment is based on some simple and
> enduring principles.
>
> > uninformed comment.  In fact, the whole ICANN process is an an
> effort
> > to privatize something under government control.
>
> But that's probably not possible.  And if the so-called
> privatization ends up in the United States transferring something
> under its control to some vague "international community", then
> the interests of citizens everywhere are compromised.
>
> >
> > [irrelevant political rant deleted]
>
> That's you feeling.  Your smug wisdom above is also a political
> comment.
>
> >
> > --
> > Kent Crispin                               "Be good, and you
> will be
> ...
>
> --
> 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