At 10:12 AM 2/11/99 -0500, somebody (I'm too tired to count >) wrote:
>>
>>Let's take a step back. Keep in mind that WIPO is addressing procedures =
>>only, not the substantive rules of Intellectual Property Law.
When WIPO proposes to impose a mandatory arbitration scheme that could
divest a party of a domain name that under U.S. contract and trademark law
(or the law of any other involved country) would still be protected, then
it would
be changing "the substantive rules of Intellectual Property Law." When it
proposes that it would even presume to make decisions in such an area, it
acts contrary to international law in that it would presume to decide matters
affecting the citizens of other countries without the governments of those
countries having given it authority to do so.
Even the "World Court" cannot do that -- nations will AGREE that it has
jurisdiction in particular cases, but absent such an agreement it has no
power at all. WIPO certainly does not have more power than the World
Court.
The same applies to ICANN in the wilds of California, USA. Do those of
you in The Netherlands, Scotland, Nigeria, Japan, etc., etc., want a
bunch of faceless nobodys in La La land divesting you of your domain
names?
IT TAKES INTERNATIONAL TREATIES TO DO THIS THINGS! Agreements
that set up this body or that as facilitators of various administrative
functions,
e.g., WIPO, DO NOT impart such authority.
(Um. Pardon the shouting.)
Bill Lovell
