[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [wg-b] WIPO goes too far, and always has ...
I fail to see why you ignore the obvious. Trademark interests are very much
relevent to the DNS issues before us. The point is that we are sitting at a
negotiating table with interests that are not present in good faith. You
have obviously failed to follow the links that I have provided. The proof is
extant. To ignore the consequential effects of our actions, decisions, and
recommendations is both irresponsible and stupid. To further ignore the
relevence of this is the pinnacle of absurdity. It is also, largely, how we
got here in the first place.
Are you going to deny the votebot results?
> -----Original Message-----
> From: firstname.lastname@example.org [mailto:email@example.com]On Behalf Of
> Harald Tveit Alvestrand
> Sent: Sunday, October 31, 1999 10:49 AM
> To: firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com
> Subject: Re: [wg-b] WIPO goes too far, and always has ...
> At 10:58 29.10.99 -0700, Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote:
> >Hello fellow ICANN/DNSO WG-B members;
> >Here is yet another example of pro-trademark zealots going
> out of bounds.
> >Making the Hosting Provider, or ISP, responsible for any
> part of content,
> >that they currently have no control over, is the surest
> means to kill-off
> >the Internet that I can think of.
I may be dumb, but I fail totally to see the relevance of this article to
your argument, or to ICANN, or to WG-B.
Both the zealotry of the recording industry and the existence of sites that
allow distribution of MP3-encoded material without the consent of the
copyright holder, are well known.
But this has:
- No relevance to trademarks
- No relevance to domain names
I don't even think it's particularly relevant to the subject of hosting
providers' responsibility for the content they host; this battle line is
definitely a moving target.
Harald Tveit Alvestrand, Maxware, Norway