Re: [atlarge-discuss] Trademark debate

[eric@hi-tek.com]

Respectfully Jeff you are wrong, and very dangerously wrong if people follow this
logic.

WTO and BTAs and UN and all international conventions of business require what is
referred to as International standards and that requires some grouping of
integrity in an acceptable international community.

In this instance if it is not ICANN who is it?
Not ISOC for sure and now that they have entered into commercial work it never
will be.  Not EU because they also make some dough off the deal.

I am not convinced that we get to walk away at this point.
Damned frustrating.
e

Jeff Williams wrote:

> Bruce and all stakeholders or other interested parties and members,
>
> Bruce Young wrote:
>
> > Richard Henderson wrote:
> >
> > |  The hijacking of our language by the Intellectual Property brigade,
> > |  supported and condoned by ICANN, is one or the great offences of this
> > |  "organisation" which purports to operate on behalf of the whole world.
> >
> > Yes indeed.  Their UDRP, in one fell swoop, reworte long-standing trademark
> > laws, in the US at least.
>
>   The UDRP is not part of TM law in any country.  It is what it is and it is
> managed by WIPO, although created by ICANN originally.  Hence even
> if you loose in a UDRP filing, you can still sue in most jurisdictions to
> protect
> your domain name.  Legal liability insurance and Domain Name legal insurance
> is now available and has been for about 2 years to cover these sorts of
> potential problems or situations.  The premiums are fairly low.
>
> > Prior to the UDRP (as noted in the Roadrunner
> > cartoons!) you could have hundreds of "Acme" trademarks, as long as the
> > companies weren't in the same line of business.
>
>   And this remains true Bruce.  The UDRP did not change that at all...
> Where do you get these ideas anyway?
>
> >  But ICANN's egregious UDRP
> > allow *anyone* holding a trademark for the name "Acme" to sue to obtain the
> > rights for ACME.COM (which BTW currently belongs to ACME Laboratories, a
> > Unix software geek's site!).
>
>   No the UDRP only allows the holders of the TM ACME to file a UDRP
> complaint, not sue.
>
> > Unless the little guy can afford the cost of
> > arbitration (I couldn't!) and then potentially a lengthly court battle to
> > the tune of six or seven-figures if they win arbitration, the big guys
> > always win by simply filing!
>
>   No not always.  The Sex.com case is a particular example.  There are some
> 400+ other documented examples as well in various US Federal district
> court jurisdictions.  The ninth in particular is one of some note and has been
> also additionally noted on the DNSO GA list several times as well as in
> CNN news and CNN Legal news.  The ACLU also has a library of
> a number of these cases.
>
> >
> >
> > |  Let's be frank : ICANN is craven and serves corporate industry,
> > |  and American corporate industry in particular.
>
>   Good point here.  Indeed you are quite correct.
>
> >
> >
> > Yes.  Without a counterbalancing public voice, ICANN has been selling out
> > the Internet to their corporate friends as fast as they can.  That was the
> > reason for the original decison to create the At Large, and give it half the
> > power on the board, to serve as a counervailing force.
>
>   Yes this was one of several reasons.  But it was and is not now the
> only reason Bruce.  It just makes good business sense, even though some
> of the larger, and now financially suffering interests in the Internet biz
> such as verisign, AT&T, Worldcom, Quest, and Global Crossing
> don't see the forest for the trees still.  They will or they shall parish
> just as US Steel did some years ago and than had to have a rebirth
> to something much smaller than they once were...
>
> >  And that is why the
> > Internet industry cronies on the ICANN board have tried so had to
> > invalidatev and eliminate the At Large.  They don't want anyone interfering
> > with their unbridled greed!
>
>   I have to agree here as well.  However that unbridled greed is hitting
> many of ICANN"s biggest supporters pretty hard right now, and has been
> for about a year.  Such unbridled greed behavior only leads to disaster.
> Many of those Telcoms and related big interests are finding this out, but
> slowly and the hard way...
>
> >
> >
> > And that is why I feel they wouldn't hesitate to drag us into court over
> > ICANNATLARGE.COM, now that the idea has been brought to their attention!
>
>   Wrong conclusion.  ICANN will never sue...
>
> >
> >
> > Bruce Young
> > Portland, Oregon USA
> > bruce@barelyadequate.info
> > http://www.barelyadequate.info
> > --------------------------------------------
> > Support democratic control of the Internet!
> > Go to http://www.icannatlarge.com and Join ICANN At Large!
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
> > For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de
>
> Regards,
> --
> Jeffrey A. Williams
> Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 127k members/stakeholders strong!)
> CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
> Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
> E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
> Contact Number: 214-244-4827 or 972-244-3801
> Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
> For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de