>Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1999 08:01:26 -0500 (EST)
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: BOUNCE [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Non-member submission from ["Kevin J.
Connolly" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>]
>
>>From rspab.com!CONNOLLK Fri Feb 12 08:01:24 1999
>Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Received: from firewall.rspab.com(NY1.rspab.com[208.240.223.26]) (5993
bytes) by ns1.vrx.net
> via sendmail with P:esmtp/D:aliases/T:pipe
> (sender: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>)
> id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Fri, 12 Feb 1999 08:01:24 -0500 (EST)
> (Smail-3.2.0.100 1997-Dec-8 #2 built 1997-Dec-18)
>Received: from gw1.rspab.com (unverified) by firewall.rspab.com
> (Content Technologies SMTPRS 2.0.15) with SMTP id
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
> Fri, 12 Feb 1999 08:05:46 -0500
>Received: from RS5DOM-Message_Server by gw1.rspab.com
> with Novell_GroupWise; Fri, 12 Feb 1999 08:00:15 -0500
>Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 5.5
>Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1999 07:59:36 -0500
>From: "Kevin J. Connolly" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: Re: Trademarks vs DNS -Reply -Reply
>MIME-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>Content-Disposition: inline
>
>Mr. Walsh,
>
>You've misstated my position.
>
>I am opposed to mandatory arbitration. I am in favor of mandatory =
>mediation so long as it does not require face to face meetings outside =
>theregistrant's locality.
>
>KJC.2
>
>>>> "William X. Walsh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 02/11/99 01:50pm >>>
>
>I don't disagree with you that arbitration is the preferable method of
>resolution, however I DO disagree with MANDATORY ADR. ADR does not need =
>to be
>incorporated at this level, as ADR is an option for both parties now, =
>without
>any blessing from ICANN or NSI or the DNSO. But to MANDATE arbritration =
>is to
>deprive one or the other party of their right to select to have their day =
>in a
>court of law where the charge must be proved according to those standards, =
>and
>that the challenger defend their charge.
>
>
>
>On 11-Feb-99 Kevin J. Connolly wrote:
>> Roeland M.J. Meyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 02/11/99 03:30am wrote:
>> =20
>> {snip}
>> {At 01:28 PM 2/10/99 -0800, Kent Crispin responded to Mikki Barry}:
>> =20
>> >>> >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.
>> >>>=20
>> >>> 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
>> =20
>> >It may be the point of the WIPO agreement. The point of this thread is
>> >finding a compromise, not creating law.
>> =20
>> >>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.=20
>> =20
>> >Yes they are beyond current law. They are supra-legal. Since we are NOT =
>a
>> >governing body, nor are we a legislature, what business do we have =
>writing
>> >law? There is also the question of this practice being US-legal, as it
>> >requires assignation of basic rights, but this is getting beyond my
>> >knowledge domain. When one starts behaving in a supra-legal manner, one
>> >risks violating the law.
>> =20
>> Let's take a step back. Keep in mind that WIPO is addressing procedures=
>
>> only, not the substantive rules of Intellectual Property Law.
>> =20
>> Keep in mind, too, that there's a world of difference between mandatory
>> mediation (good idea :-) and mandatory arbitration (not a good idea :-)
>> =20
>> Mediation is essentially guided negotiations. If either side doesn't =
>like
>> the result, then there is no resolution. Arbitration is a substitute =
>for
>> going to court. I don't wish to have to defend cybersharque.com in an
>> online environment or to be required to hop a plane to Geneva to do so.
>> =20
>> The beauty of mediation as ADR is that rational thinking works. It =
>saves
>> time and money and aggravation. Arbitration, on the other hand, is =
>scarcely
>> less expensive than going to court.
>> =20
>> Kevin J. Connolly
>> The foregoing statements are solely the author's opinions.
>> **********************************************************************
>> The information contained in this electronic message is confidential
>> and is or may be protected by the attorney-client privilege, the work
>> product doctrine, joint defense privileges, trade secret protections,
>> and/or other applicable protections from disclosure. If the reader of
>> this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified
>> that any use, dissemination, distribution or reproduction of this com-
>> munication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communi-
>> cation in error, please immediately notify us by calling our Help Desk
>> at 212-541-2000 ext.3314, or by e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> **********************************************************************
>
>----------------------------------
>E-Mail: William X. Walsh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Date: 11-Feb-99
>Time: 10:47:33
>----------------------------------
>"We may well be on our way to a society overrun by hordes
>of lawyers, hungry as locusts."=20
>- Chief Justice Warren Burger, US Supreme Court, 1977
>
>**********************************************************************
>The information contained in this electronic message is confidential
>and is or may be protected by the attorney-client privilege, the work
>product doctrine, joint defense privileges, trade secret protections,
>and/or other applicable protections from disclosure. If the reader of
>this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified
>that any use, dissemination, distribution or reproduction of this com-
>munication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communi-
>cation in error, please immediately notify us by calling our Help Desk
>at 212-541-2000 ext.3314, or by e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>**********************************************************************
>
--
The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] "It's all just marketing" +1 (613) 473-1719
Maitland House, Bannockburn, Ontario, CANADA, K0K 1Y0
