[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [discuss] Trademarks and WIPO issues
I DO have a problem with NSI's DDRP and now ICANN is asking us to do
something that is many times worse. Doesn't everyone see this? We
shouldn't be touching this with 10-foot poles, any more than NSI should.
There is adequate existing law that is actually cheaper to enforce than
some lawyer-job-security-scam called arbitration board. I've been in
arbitration and I've won, the victory was questionable. I'd rather have
been in court. A lawyer's idea of mediation is spreading the misery, not
doing what's right and arbitration is about mediation.
Two lawyers at an arbitration hearing; Lawyers 2, plaintiff and
defendant both 0.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: firstname.lastname@example.org
> [mailto:email@example.com]On Behalf Of
> Sent: Monday, June 28, 1999 7:02 AM
> To: Jeff Williams; firstname.lastname@example.org
> Cc: d3nnis; commerce; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; William
> Subject: Re: [discuss] Trademarks and WIPO issues
> Hi Jeff --
> I have a real problem with ICANN writing international law, just
> as I would have a problem with NSI writing US law.
> Calling it a contract matter doesn't make me feel better. Many
> of us have ancestors whose rights were once a matter of contract and
> property law before they were upgraded to coverage by the
> Bill of Rights.
> > Dennis and all,
> > I see nothing wrong with ICANN proposing, text or the
> direction of
> > international
> > conventions", as you put it. But I DO see something wrong
> with ICANN
> > doing so in the Stakeholders name's. They have no such mandate,
> > nor are they likely to get one anytime soon.
> > What is appalling and amazing to me anyway, is that Becky Burr and
> > the NTIA is allowing the ICANN to use the stakeholders names in this
> > manner, knowing that the ICANN does not have such a mandate..
> > d3nnis wrote:
> > > Roeland wrote:
> > >
> > > <I think current law is sufficient. A minimal policy,
> under the law, is
> > > <FCFS and ALWAYS follow court-orders from competent
> jurisdiction. The
> > > <minimal acceptable additional requirement is to require proof of
> > > <trademark before instantiation. Anything else usurps the
> law and becomes
> > > <extra-legal, therefore unenforcable.
> > >
> > > I agree. Case law keeps changing from day-to-day, and
> Congress has
> > > further amendments to the Lanham Act before it right now.
> > >
> > > ICANN should not be proposing the text or the direction
> of international
> > > conventions.
> > Regards,
> > --
> > Jeffrey A. Williams
> > CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
> > Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
> > E-Mail email@example.com
> > Contact Number: 972-447-1894
> > Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208