Re: [atlarge-discuss] icannatlarge.com

[eric@hi-tek.com]

I address you and Mr. Schmidt,

Language and it's usage is not clear cut.  For instance you may not incorporate
under a .com in california, you may not have a generic trademark, yet it happens
all the time  We could not incorporate under hi-tek.com.vn so we incorporated under
hi-tek-com-vn and use hi-tek.com.vn.  This is silliness and sophistry to the tenth
degree.  "What is Justice?" is an argument that has been beaten to death and "what
is pornography" is equally stupid.
In my native non adoptive culture of the US the biggest threat we believe in
protecting our rights is what is referred to as "prior restraint", this is the
forbidden word based upon threat in advance.  It inhibits one from speaking thier
thoughts out of fear of prosecution.  Here we are faced with similar problems.
Some Professorial Lawyer has warned in advance that certain speech may be bad so we
in advance shun it.
This is heresy and the beginning of book burning.
International Standards upon which the WTO, UN, WIPO and all BTAs are based
restrict the limiting in advance of free speech.  To my knowledge only the GA of
the DNSO engages in it on an international basis.
If there should be any axiomatic truth in an AL it should be that speech is not
restrained and thoughts are free, even if after they are spoken they carry a heavy
price.

I personally despise the thought of ICANN logos and the name in any thing we do.
But that is a matter of our collective society and not one persons' opinion.
What I speak here is not an opinion but thousands of years worth of linguistic
philosophy.
If you look for fact on this issue read the literature.

Sincerely,
e

Norbert Klein wrote:

> > |  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!
> > 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.
>
> Please help me to understand this. (I admit that I do not understand some of
> the fine meanings which may be in some of the poetry in some of the other
> recent postings on this list).
>
> It is not that "Other Web sites are using the ICANN name as part of their
> online identity" - the ICANN web site enumerating the different "at large"
> structures mentiones us as the only world wide structure with the name of our
> present Web site.
>
> Why is this point not taken up in our debate more clearly? What is wrong
> with this very clear fact?
>
> This situation belongs, for me, to the world of FACTS.
>
> Of course if the vote on the name should result in a name change of the
> group of people who have gathered under the name of ICANNatlarge at our present
> web site - then we have voted ourselves out from the position we have at
> present - rightly acknowledged so far also by ICANN.
>
> Norbert
>
> --
> Norbert Klein
> Open Forum of Cambodia: www.forum.org.kh
>
> 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


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