[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [wg-b] Re: ICANN's Mandate
We're not "using the power of the US Congress." If we were, we could have
done things much faster. We are trying to come up with consensus policies
which which we will then implement through *contracts,* not statutes. I
have not noticed the USG requiring anyone other than NSI to sign a contract
- and even that one was a pretty tough negotiation!
FWIW, there's nothing in the UDRP about Famous Marks; that's still in the DNSO>
At 10:55 pm 10/08/1999 -0700, d3nnis wrote:
>Here's the leap: offering new privileges to Famous Marks without
>amending the legislation that created them -- then using the power
>of the US government to require everyone to contractually agree
>That is not 'advising Congress' as you claim -- it is replacing it.
>> It is appropriate for ICANN to advise Congress with respect to domain
>> names and trademark issues.
>> How does putting trademark issues on the agenda equate to writing trademark
>> statutes? It's your inference, but it's a mighty big leap from what he
>> actually said.
>> Eileen Kent
>> At 08:56 PM 10/8/99 -0700, d3nnis wrote:
>> >Mike Roberts Wrote:
>> >>The USG White Paper, which is ICANN's chartering policy document,
>> >> clearly puts trademark issues that intersect with the Domain Name
>> >> System on our agenda.
>> >Surely you don't contend that Congress transferred its power to write
>> >trademark statutes to the Department of Commerce, which then passed
>> >it to ICANN? Or do you?
>> >>Dennis Schaefer
Esther Dyson Always make new mistakes!
chairman, EDventure Holdings
interim chairman, Internet Corp. for Assigned Names & Numbers
1 (212) 924-8800
1 (212) 924-0240 fax
104 Fifth Avenue (between 15th and 16th Streets; 20th floor)
New York, NY 10011 USA
High-Tech Forum in Europe: 24 to 26 October 1999, Budapest
PC Forum: March 12 to 15, 2000, Scottsdale (Phoenix), Arizona
Book: "Release 2.0: A design for living in the digital age"