RE: [ga] Interesting WIPO ruling re: NewZealand.biz

["Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" <froomkin@law.miami.edu>]

I would be most interested in hearing where this rule of "comity and
custom" has been enforced in private law contexts.  Are you seriously
suggesting that if I open a restaurant here in Miami called "New Zealand"
I am guilty of some offense sounding in either public or private
international law? Or if I name the computers on the campus network
"France" and "China" I've committed an offense?

Can you site one single judgment to that effect?  Or anything else that
would be recognized as a source of international law?

It may be -- maybe! -- that there's a norm about states not taking the
same name as other states (but see revolutions, civil wars); more likely
there's a norm that states can call themselves whatever they like.  But
where on earth does this norm you have asserted come from, and what
evidence is there for its existence other than your no doubt sincere
beliefs and a few statements by the GAC, a body with no standing in
interantional law since it's an advisory committee to a private company?  

On Thu, 10 Oct 2002, Rodrigo  Orenday Serrato wrote:

> I insist that the naming of States is a matter of public interest, and
> therefore registrars should ban the registration of domain names comprising
> the names of States, unless registration is requested by the State
> concerned.
> 
> Altough Professor Froomkin commented earlier this week that there is no
> basis in international public law for the foregoing, I beleive that there
> is, specifically in international commity and custom. Each State is entitled
> to choose the form of its designation, same which may not be used otherwise
> by anyone else, irrepective of the function that eacg gTLD is supposed to
> serve.
> 
> Atentamente, Regards
> Rodrigo Orenday Serratos
> 
> 
> -----Mensaje original-----
> De: owner-ga@dnso.org [mailto:owner-ga@dnso.org]En nombre de Andy
> Gardner
> Enviado el: Jueves, 10 de Octubre de 2002 10:57 AM
> Para: ga@dnso.org
> Asunto: Re: [ga] Interesting WIPO ruling re: NewZealand.biz
> 
> 
> At 7:13 PM +1300 10/10/02, DPF wrote:
> 
> >It appears from inquiries I have made locally that the application was
> >not made by the NZ Government but by Trade New Zealand - a government
> >owned organisation, presumably with the consent of their Minister as
> >his name was used.  Other sections of the Government with an interest
> >in these things were not in the loop on this.
> >
> >In fact official NZ government policy on the issue of country names as
> >domain names is that they should not be precluded.  This can be found
> >in the submission at
> >http://ecommerce.wipo.int/domains/sct/comments/0009.html.
> >
> 
> Interesting.
> 
> So who do we need to contact in the govt hierachy to get the UDRP for
> newzealand.com withdrawn?
> 
> Check out the following news item:
> 
> http://www.nzherald.co.nz/storydisplay.cfm?storyID=2998418&thesection=techno
> logy&thesubsection=general
> 
> Quoting:
> 
> "The Government has won back the rights to the newzealand.biz internet
> domain name"
> 
> Firstly, you can't say "won back" when they never had the rights in the
> first place, so journalist Adam Gifford needs to get A CLUE. And someone
> can forward that message onto him from me if they like.
> 
> Secondly, it sounds like "the Government" had no idea this was going on
> (thanks to the secrecy surrounding the UDRP process in general - you don't
> know who filed a case until it's all over) and the apparent wish of the
> complainant to not publish the results.
> 
> So Adam Gifford really needs to re-hash his story, and perhap do some
> research this time, instead of just repeating quotes from "the Government".
> 
> Thirdly:
> 
> "Mackenzie said the cost of getting back the name was minimal."
> 
> Mackenzie/Trade NZ/"the Government" didn't "get back the name". They STOLE
> it.
> 
> Sheesh.
> 
> No points for guessing what the outcome of
> http://arbiter.wipo.int/domains/decisions/html/2002/d2002-0754.html will
> be, now that these crooks have got some precedence behind them.
> 
> Note to those that don't know how the UDRP process REALLY works: What you
> read in the final "decision" isn't always the full story. The "panel"
> frequently leaves out anything (usually submitted by the defendant) that
> doesn't fit the outcome they desire. It's pretty much a SCAM being operated
> here.
> 
> 
> 
> --
> Andrew P. Gardner
> barcelona.com stolen, stmoritz.com stays. What's uniform about the UDRP?
> We could ask ICANN to send WIPO a clue, but do they have any to spare?
> Get active: http://www.tldlobby.com
> 
> --
> 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
> 
> --
> This message was passed to you via the ga-full@dnso.org list.
> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> 
> 

-- 
		Please visit http://www.icannwatch.org
A. Michael Froomkin   |    Professor of Law    |   froomkin@law.tm
U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA
+1 (305) 284-4285  |  +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax)  |  http://www.law.tm
                      -->It's very hot here.<--

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