[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: [wg-b] computer freedom and privacy conference

>It would be challenged. The decision would be overturned in court
Eileen, the small business or individual victimized by a deep-pocketed corporation would likely not have the stomach, or the funds, to go to court ...
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-wg-b@dnso.org [mailto:owner-wg-b@dnso.org]On Behalf Of eileen kent
Sent: Friday, April 07, 2000 1:18 PM
To: wg-b@dnso.org
Subject: [wg-b] computer freedom and privacy conference

"David Post of Temple Law School panned the controversial anti-cybersquatting legislation and raised questions about how the courts and the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) are dealing with disputes regarding who has the right to certain domain names.
Under some laws and ICANN's dispute resolution policy, people can't register names in 'bad faith,' a term that has yet to be defined, Post said. One person in the audience asked if a parody site could be considered a site registered in 'bad faith.'
The answer from the panel: We don't know. "
They don't know? Well, how about an educated guess? If the udrp came  down on the side of a trademark owner  in a parody case it would be violating well documented First Amendment protections in the U.S. It would be challenged. The decision would be overturned in court, the trademark owner would lose and people would become reluctant to use the UDRP because it had no authority.
"In bad faith" just like "fame" is subjective. Words and phrases that cannot be defined with some degree of universality should be avoided where possible in created the rules and regulations surrounding the dns. But as long as we're using human language, not zeroes and ones, it isn't always possible.