Martin,
Part of the threat, as I see it, is how the text of the Abraham bill
would be used in practice. Jail time and $100,000 damage awards are scary
things.
The liability components of the bill speak in terms of intent, always a
tricky thing to define, and something that usually requires a trial to
resolve. (The bill is at:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c106:S.1255:)
If the Abraham bill passes, all of the lawyers here know what the cease
and desist letter (and the resulting complaint) to the operator of the
next veronica.org will look like. Regardless of "intent," there will be a
threat of jail time and/or statutory damages, which could not be made
under existing law, that will make individuals, non-profits, and small
businesses less willing to play their winning hands.
It's the same problem we've seen with dilution. *Every* trademark case
now seems to contain a dilution cause of action and every company, no
matter how small or how local, claims to have a "famous name."
I'll gladly put part of the blame for all of this on overzealous (or
overcautious) lawyers, but the Abraham bill goes well beyond what is
necessary. Cybersquatters are maddening, but so are a lot of the list
members here. While I'd like to see jail time for them, that's really
overkill.
But forget the textual debate for a minute. I can't really believe that
you support the Abraham bill as drafted. And as a fellow supporter of
ICANN and self-governance, wouldn't you rather see the Abraham bill
flushed in favor of whatever the community recommends through the DNSO
process? (Understanding of course, that ICANN's contractual authority,
via control over the root bottleneck, does not yet give it the power to
incarcerate us. ;-)
-- Bret
>DNRC writes:
>
>>In the real world, use of Cadillac for cat food
>>and Cadillac for automobiles is permitted. Yet on the Internet, that
>>type of use could make you a criminal under this bill."
>
>The Cadillac pet food business started before there was a federal dilution
>statute (which statute had no retroactive effect). If a similar use began
>today, such a use may well be found to be actionable under 43(c) of the
>Lanham Act. Thus the proposed bill is not inconsistent with present law to
>the extent indicated above.
...
