Bill,
No need to apologize.
Some of us have been saying the same thing for years.
We keep on fighting the same battles and (fortunately) winning every
time.
It is tiring but a job worth doing.
In every case what is required is a reasoned analysis that shows just
what you have demonstrated: creation of new law that decreases
someones rights without any tangible benefit to that party (although
the party that gains new rights will assert that the other side gets
something wonderful that the loser somehow can't find lots of
entheusiasm for).
Every time we do this the people who wish to impose these mechanisms
say 'well, ok' and go away for a while.
The bad news is we keep on having to do it because these guys go away
and come back saying, 'well, we have to do something' which somehow
convinces enough people to let them have another kick at the can.
There are always variations on the same theme, but it all comes back
to what you said: it's an attempt to create new via some sort of
binding (or partly-binding) contractual mechanism. It just won't fly.
The whole world would probably accept non-binding in an instant and we
could move on (that's just my personal opinion, BTW). Unfortunately,
every time we all seem to agree on the concept someone slips in some
wording that is somehow less than perfectly non-binding. Sigh.
So it's great you took on the task this time round.
Bill Lovell wrote:
>
> 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
--
Dan Steinberg
SYNTHESIS:Law & Technology
35, du Ravin
Box 532, RR1 phone: (613) 794-5356
Chelsea, Quebec fax: (819) 827-4398
J0X 1N0 e-mail:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
