Re: [atlarge-discuss] icannatlarge.com

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Bruce and all stakeholders or other interested parties and members,

Bruce Young wrote:

> Jeff Williams wrote:
>
> |    Lets get something clear here Bruce.  First I have no idea what
> |  "Document" to which you refer.  Can you point us to it please?
>
> Maybe "document" was the wrong word.  I'm referring to our joint message
> that Joanna posted to the panel.

  Ah, ok...

>
>
> |  Second, and most importantly, Joanna jumped the gun, there is
> |  NO legal concern regarding ICANNATLARGE.COM with a respect
> |  to any "License" which does not exist legally speaking anyway
> |  in TM law parlance.
>
> Really?  When a noted lawyer makes a public challenge of our use of the name
> in an open forum run by ICANN (specifically the DNSO-GA forum), I'd say that
> a potential legal problem is in the wild, and our enemies are aware of it!

  John was quite right in his comments.  None the less the danger to
this membership and especially Joanna is nearly nonexistent legally
speaking from ICANN at this juncture or for that matter any time
in the foreseeable future.  If  you read ALL of John post, you would
have noted that he directly challenged ICANN to defend it's
mark.  So far and for some time now ICANN has not done so.
One such example is icannwatch.  There are several others.
SO for ICANN to do so now would not get much consideration
in a court of law an their atty's know that...  Hence the point
is moot, and yes, Joanna Jumped the gun, as well as I might add,
overreacted.



>
> I'll not disagree with others in this forum who point out that other Web
> sites are using the ICANN name as part of their online identity without
> repercussions.  However *none* of these have then have been the target of an
> unrelenting, concerted attack on all fronts by ICANN to put them out of
> business.  We have.

  We have?  How so?  We ICANNATLARGE.COM members
have done precious little to make ourselves even reasonably
expectable as we are not yet even incorporated, filed as a legal
association, or even publicly declared our actual status.  Hence
is it any wonder that the ICANN BoD and staff have paid us
little mind?  I think not unfortunately.

>  Do you seriously believe that if we give ICANN any
> opening to attack us legally that they *won't* use it, particularly if we
> are successful in growing our numbers and start exerting an influence on
> their processes?

  FIrst off their processes are or should be in line with our processes, as
we are part of the process like it or not, and are effected by that or those
processes.

> If so, then you haven't been watching the same ICANN I
> have over the last two years or so.  (And I know you have, Jeff, so why are
> you ingnoring this?)

  No I sure and not ignoring anything.  I think you and Joanna in this instance
are way over reacting...

>
>
> |  Third, the "Panel" not it's chair, Joanna, have the mandate to
> |  recommend anything with regards to this issue anyway...
>
> Agreed.  And the election Watchdog group, i.e., myself, Walter and Joanna,
> when faced with an issue that could affect the election, had an obligation
> to present it to the panel, along with a recommendation about how to
> procede, rather than sit on it and keep the menmbership in the dark until
> after the elections.  Being committed to our obligations to openness and
> accountability, we presented the issue to the panel and asked them to
> decide.  So based on your statement, quoted above, we fulfilled our
> obligation.  What's your beef?

  I have no beef.  Why do you think I have by what I said above?

>
>
> |    Forth, and last, the likelihood of ICANNATLARGE.COM
> |  being retained after the vote is unlikely.  Hence making this particular
> |  issue moot....
>
> Not being an election watchdog, you're not in any position to predict the
> outcome of the election, Jeff, so that statement is just posturing on your
> part.

  Perhaps so.  None the less I will make a bet with you on it anyway.
How much can you afford to loose...  >;)

>  And being one, I will neither confirm or deny your prediction, since
> I would otherwise leave myself open (and rightly so!) to accusations of
> trying to influence the vote!

  I thought so...  >;)

>
>
> But all this is a side issue to the real concern: a potential legal conflict
> exists, depending on the election outcome, and ICANN (you remember them? The
> guys that wish we would all die and go away quietly!) would be the primary
> litigant against us!

  There will be no legal action.  There is very little chance of any legal
action
regardless of the election result stemming our of a TM challenge or cease
and desist from ICANN's legal folks...

> In the event that our membership endorses
> ICANNATLARGE.ORG as our identity, we would have and obligation to conduct
> yet another discussion period and vote over its legality.

  Why?  I would let ICANN make their case.  They don't have a real case
at this late date anyway, so I would venture an educated guess that the
case if filed would not make it past the preliminary hearing, and be
thrown out of court due to lack of prompt defense of the ICANN
Mark with prior knowledge...

>  That was the
> intent behind the post myself, Walter and Joanna presented to the panel, and
> our inmitial recommendations were an attempt to avoid that second vote,
> considering how hard it was to get everyone on board to conduct *this* one!.
>
> If you find the reality of these events uncomfortable, too bad!  So did we!
> So don't shoot the messengers!

  I am not shooting anyone.  I am making the argument that Joanna in her
discourse was premature, and over reacted...   Just that simple.  If I were
to be shooting anyone I would have been allot more direct, blunt and to the
point.  Although I admire  your loyalty, it is unnecessary in this instance
as there was no need to come to anyone's defense in the first place...

>
>
> 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