On Wed, Feb 10, 1999 at 07:50:22PM -0500, Milton Mueller wrote:
> 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.
Actually, Milton, you are supporting my statement, and not Bill's.
Let me spell that for you: Bill claimed that worrying about WIPO's
procedures was a waste of time; that they could have no effect; that
local trademark laws would be the deciding force. This, as you so
forcefully point out, is ridiculous -- the WIPO procedures would, as
you put it, create a new form of administrative law, and could
certainly have an effect.
To boil it down further: Bill says WIPO is irrelevant because it can
have no effect; I say it is relevant because it can have an effect;
you say it is relevant because it can have an effect, but the effect
is bad.
Thank you for your support. I will leave it to you to explain to
Bill why he is wrong :-)
> 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.
What an amusing self-referential statement!
--
Kent Crispin, PAB Chair "Do good, and you'll be
[EMAIL PROTECTED] lonesome." -- Mark Twain
