[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [wg-b] Re: ICANN's Mandate
At 19:31 10.10.99 -0700, d3nnis wrote:
>I agree with you that Congress has given a legislative mandate
>to DOC for specified things: that is indisputable.
>Whether Congress authorized DOC to extend the Lanham Act
>to domain names is the gist of my question. It clearly did not.
>So when the White Paper authorized "someone" to look into
>protections for famous marks, it is appropriate to ask "Where and
>when did DOC receive Congressional authorization to regulate
This may be interesting, but fundamentally irrelevant.
ICANN is created in order to manage *contractual* obligations in an
The question before us is how these *contractual* obligations should be
formulated in such a way that conflict with the laws of the various
countries, and the international treaties to which various countries are
signatories, is minimized.
I regard the question of who has authorized who to do what to American law
as fundamentally irrelevant to our inquiry.
Harald Tveit Alvestrand, Maxware, Norway