[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[ICANN-EU] Re: Sears vs. Hanna
- To: david@AMINAL.COM
- Subject: [ICANN-EU] Re: Sears vs. Hanna
- From: Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>
- Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 00:21:03 -0700
- CC: DOMAIN-POLICY@LISTS.NETSOL.COM, wipop2 <process2@listbox.wipo.int>, icann board address <icann-board@icann.org>, ICANN-EU <icann-europe@fitug.de>
- Comment: This message comes from the icann-europe mailing list.
- Organization: INEGroup Spokesman
- References: <Pine.WNT.4.21.0010171535190.-388217@prime-radiant.cavebear.com> <B61235C5.54CD%baf@fausett.com> <20001017215013.A24260@slurp.aminal.com>
- Sender: owner-icann-europe@fitug.de
David and all,
Good point David. And one that is all to often lost in the UDRP/ICANN
shell game by WIPO. And from WIPO's own officials, this seems to
be purposeful in nature. Hence I think Karl Auerbach's position, which
is exactly ours as well is the proper method by which Domain Name
disputes should be resolved. The only problem is that there is not
a good interfacing of the differences is TM law on a global basis.
With that in mind though, our position is that until there is a semblance
in TM law between most countries, or an international law that all
countries will abide by, Domain Names should have little or no
association with TM's.
Given the current atmosphere in the DN game with respect to ICANN's
Registrar contract, major revamping of those contracts would need to be
done removing the requirement for registrants from being contractually
bound to having to submit to the UDRP in the case of a dispute filed.
This should also carry over with Registries. Thereby eliminating dictating
business plans with respect to Domain Names or TLD's to this degree,
or for that matter any degree for registries for TLD's now or in the
future.
David Schutt wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 17, 2000 at 04:58:45PM -0700, Bret A. Fausett wrote:
> > > If the Fortune 500 people are sluggards and they lose the race to the
> > > registration window, then I don't feel its ICANN's place to reward 'em
> > > with a second running.
> >
> > I really appreciate the view that having few rules is better than building a
> > huge dispute resolution bureaucracy on the foundation of ICANN's technical
> > mandate, to solve a problem that is already addressed by existing laws. I
> > agree with that.
> >
> > At the same time, I have a hard time summoning much passion for a fight
> > meant to protect Mr. Hanna's right to warehouse the name "searsroebuck.com."
> > Surely there are better examples of the problems with the UDRP than this
> > one.
> >
> > -- Bret
>
> Myriad - but does there need to be? The problem is obvious even with such
> an unsympathetic case as Mr. Hanna. That's when you *know* there is deep
> muck, when you see that what's happened is wrong, even if you think it was
> the 'bad guy' that lost.
>
> David Schutt
Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman INEGroup (Over 112k members 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: 972-447-1800 x1894 or 9236 fwd's to home ph#
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208