Bill:
You are right and Crispin, as usual, is not only wrong, but manipulatively
wrong. WIPO's proposals have nothing to do with trademark law. They are an
attempt to exploit the bottleneck power of ICANN's monopoly over the name
space to give TM holders far more powerful rights, and a form of prior
restraint, over the use of domain names. They would create a new form of
administrative law that has no basis in any national government'
legislature.
Kent Crispin wrote:
> 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.
The slipperiness of this is obvious. What does it mean to be "done in the
context of existing law??" Does that mean that it is legal, illegal,
extralegal? Is there any thing that is NOT "in the context of" existing law?
The man is simply playing with words.
