On 04-Jan-99 Michael Sondow wrote:
> William X. Walsh a �crit:
>
>> Well, look are the numbers. They speak for themselves. The trademark
>> lawyers
>> do NOT have the ear of the courts btw, the courts do not make laws, they
>> interpret them. That is their role. The truth is out there :)
>
> Look, William, you don't have to convince me. I don't have any power to
> decide this issue. The people you have to convince are the courts and the
> legislators.
No, actually, we do not have to convince them. They already passed the laws
that make such rules as we are seeing proposed unnecessary, and probably
illegal. The trademark interests are the ones who need to convince them. They
know they are unlikely to ever accomplish this, so they are seeking to pressure
the ICANN and DNSO to pass these rules for them. Sorry, it doesn't wash. I
see no real reason to give them ANY special preference over any other
interested party.
If these interests want to pass new legislation, that is their perogative to
try and get new laws passed. Then everyone will abide by them. Why should be
pass rules that may in fact be illegal, and at a minimum go beyond the laws?
> Have you the money to pay enough top lawyers as the INTA and
> WIPO? The DNRC has been fighting the WIPO process, which is the extension of
> the INTA takeover of the DNSO on an international scale, for years. Have
> they won? Have they stopped WIPO? Why not? Because they haven't enough money
> and enough lawyers to write all the briefs and reports. Do you?
Again, I do not need to. Let them write all the papers they want. They don't
affect me until they try and pass legislation, and then I think you will see a
whole different picture. They know this, so they are trying to extort and
force these rules in at this level. They know they cant win at the legislative
level.
>> The simple truth is this,
>> trademark violations are a very small subset of all domain registrations,
>> the
>> numbers are there for anyone to see.
>
> No, they are not there for anyone to see. There are almost no studies, and
> the ones that have been made aren't conclusive, or have been refuted.
Any study will be refuted by the side whose interests are not promoted by the
study's results. There will NEVER be a study which meets this standard,
Michael.
> There
> aren't more than probably two or three people in the world, including Milton
> Mueller, able and interested in presenting your case. On the other hand, the
> trademark interests have thousands of lawyers and many millions of dollars
> for this fight. The numbers that the legislators and courts will see will be
> their numbers. If you base the case on numbers you will lose.
Courts don't pay attention to numbers, they pay attention to the law, and what
the law says. Their job is to interpret these laws. If the interests want to
try and influence legislators, that is their perogative. As it is mine to
influence legislators to my point of view.
So your argument is that since they MIGHT be able to get a law passed on this,
we should go ahead and adopt their rules so that they don't have to?
We will adopt their rules when the legislature passes a law with their rules in
it, and a court rules that they indeed are legal and apply to us.
>> Also, it is of very questionable legality for a business model to be
>> dictated
>> to new registry businesses that they provide supralegal protections to
>> trademark holders.
>>
>> Incorporating such rules as a mandated business model for all registries is
>> a
>> bad idea, and indeed may very well be illegal.
>
> You are living in a dream world. Please take off the rose-colored glasses so
> that your energy and intelligence can be of practical use.
Michael, I could just as easily reverse this one on you :)
The trademark holders interests will not stop this process, no matter what.
You are giving them more power than what they really have.
Let them take their case to the legislatures, and when the law says we must,
then we will adopt their rules.
Until then, we are under no obligation to do so, and in fact it may be illegal
for us to do so.
----------------------------------
E-Mail: William X. Walsh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 03-Jan-99
Time: 20:06:34
----------------------------------
__________________________________________________
To receive the digest version instead, send a
blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To SUBSCRIBE forward this message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNSUBSCRIBE, forward this message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Problems/suggestions regarding this list? Email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
___END____________________________________________
