Roeland and all,
And it is generally excepted by the US Supreme court that your
opinion is correct, for the present anyway Roeland. It again
appears that William has shown little knowledgeable understanding
of the law and how it is applied with respect to Trademark and the new
January 16 rules for the Internet. This is of course to say that YOU
have done your homework well Roeland! >;)
Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote:
> At 05:32 PM 3/1/99 -0800, William X. Walsh wrote:
> >
> >On 02-Mar-99 Einar Stefferud wrote:
> >> I think the best move for us to take is to just start using the
> >> Trademarking of Private and Prospective TLDs and be done with it. It
> >> is a silly thing to try to use qas a hammer to get ICAN to back off.
> >> They do not listen to or respond to threats! They react to real live
> >> action. And since this nice TM avenue is just sitting there waiting
> >> to be used, lets just go for it!
> >>
> >> Can we use the ORSC staging root so show that TLD names have in fact
> >> been put in commerce?
> >>
> >> Cheers...\Stef
> >
> >I really don't think it could work. The trademark could be made as only
> >applying the naming of hosts within the private networks using those
> >nameservers, and it could be argued (quite convincingly) that this would not
> >apply outside those networks, since a government sanctioned process is
> underway
> >to determine the infrastructure for naming of hosts on the generally connected
> >internet.
>
> Aside from the fact that there is *really* only one way to find out, the
> sanctioned process you mentioned does NOT have the force and substance of
> law, trademarks do. You may be convinced, but is it defensible in court?
> The sanctioned process you are discussing is an executive branch
> machination, we are discussing judicial branch options here. The executive
> branch can NOT make new law, only congress can do that, the judiciary
> interprets existing law. Whatever bureaucratic regulations ICANN implements
> will not carry force of law, they can't. Not only are they under executive
> process, they are a private corporation as well. They don't even have the
> executive imprimatur. There can not be, and there is no, transfer of power.
> The *only* way ICANN can match the USPTO is to become a USG Agency, which
> implies Congressional sanction. This runs exactly counter to USG desires to
> remove itself from control of the Internet. Ergo, ICANN *has* to conform to
> existing law. There is NO WAY a judge is going to let an ICANN policy
> over-ride existing trademark law. If nothing else, it will get shot down on
> appeal.
>
> However, IANAL applies. All of the preceding is strictly my humble opinion.
> ___________________________________________________
> Roeland M.J. Meyer -
> e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Internet phone: hawk.lvrmr.mhsc.com
> Personal web pages: http://staff.mhsc.com/~rmeyer
> Company web-site: http://www.mhsc.com
> ___________________________________________________
> KISS ... gotta love it!
Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Contact Number: 972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
