At 02:37 PM 5/13/99 -0800, you wrote:
>Kent Crispin wrote:
>
>>I think it should be adopted, immediately, on a provisional basis. I
>>think that the new registrars need a uniform framework for dispute
>>resolution fairly early on (like: now).
>
>They have a uniform framework. It's called the court system.
Right, Ellen
>
>>Modifiability, therefore, is a requirement.
>
>You are broadly optimistic in assuming that once a recommendation is
>accepted it won't become the defacto way of doing things. Modification
>will become an increasingly distant objective because it's easier to keep
>things the way they are than to impose change.
The lethargic response to entrenchment could not have been more
abundantly demonstrated than in what we've seen here over the last
several years. NSI, ICANN and the weather: what one thing do all
three have in common? (Uh, oh, yeah. WIPO.)
>
>>It vastly simplifies the registrars
>>lives during startup of competition.
>
>It is my understanding that registrars will be able to have their own
>individual registration policies, e.g. whether the verboten seven words can
>be registered or not. It doesn't appear that uniform policies on that end
>of the equation are either urgent or even desirable in a competitive
>market. Such differentiation may help customers choose one registrar over
>another.
>
>>
>>I think a uniform base DRP is a great idea -- more precisely, I think
>>it is an absolutely necessary precondition for private
>>self-regulation of the net. Without it, complete control over all
>>this *will* go to some international treaty organization. The WIPO
>>recommendations aren't perfect, but they form a pretty good starting
>>point, and they will evolve over time.
>
>So I guess you think registrars should be in the business of policing
>famous trademark owners marks? That is what will be required if the famous
>marks exclusion becomes part of your so desirable unform base DRP. Even
>forgetting that there is no worldwide agreement on what is a famous mark,
>why should registrars have to build into their system alpha strings that
>get automatically excluded under this provision? Who gets to decide what
>those strings are? Will there be limits to the numbers that qualify under
>the famous marks provision? How will the bar between famous/well-known and
>infamous/lesser be determined?
What kills me about that whole scenario is the bloody arrogance of these
toads who, like NSI, think they are a law unto themselves and can set
up bunches of rules that free people (i.e., internet consumers) are then
supposed to follow. A pox on all their friggin' houses.
I'm makin' a list and checkin' it twice.
Bill Lovell
