Who said anything about breaking current law?
The objection is to the extension of rights and protections beyond what the
law currently provides, and what the law will likely provide in the future.
Non elected, unaccountable self regulating bodies should not be
contemplating moves that touch on so many fundamental rights and
responsibilities, especially when it is not a necessity, but only a desire
of some of the participants.
David Schutt
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Kent
> Crispin
> Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 1999 3:28 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Trademarks vs DNS
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 10, 1999 at 03:09:57PM -0500, Mikki Barry wrote:
> > Kent Crispin said:
> >
> > >Your point is completely irrelevant. *ALL* of the discussions have
> > >been concerning what can be done in the context of existing trademark
> > >law. The WIPO procedures etc are *ALL* things that can be done in
> > >the context of existing law.
> >
> > Please re-read the WIPO draft, Kent. It contemplates MANY
> things that are
> > far beyond current existing law.
>
> 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?
>
> --
> Kent Crispin, PAB Chair "Do good,
> and you'll be
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] lonesome." -- Mark Twain
>
