At 01:28 PM 2/10/99 -0800, you wrote:
>On Wed, Feb 10, 1999 at 03:09:57PM -0500, Mikki Barry wrote:
>> Kent Crispin said:
>
>Please re-read what I wrote. Of *course* the WIPO draft "contemplates"
>things beyond current law -- that's the whole point. The question is
>whether the draft specifies things that can't be implemented because
>they would *contradict* current law. For example, contractually
>mandated ADRs are completely consistent with current law, but they
>are also beyond the current law.
>
>But it's certainly possible I may have missed something -- perhaps
>you could list the things WIPO advocates that would break current TM
>law?
>
Well, predominantly their whole dispute resolution bit. They don't have
the authority to tell a U. S. Court who gets to keep a domain name and
who has to give it up. Nor tell anyone else.
Secondly, their "contractually mandated ADRs" would appear to be
contracts of adhesion, like the NSI contract, if the execution of one
is part of the price for getting a domain name. It's time for the advocates
of "freedom" to jump onto this bandwagon, I should think.
Bill Lovell
