>Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: BOUNCE [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Non-member submission from ["Carl Pratt" ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>] >Date: Fri, 10 Dec 1999 00:04:43 -0500 (EST) > >>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fri Dec 10 00:04:41 1999 >Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Received: from relay1.smtp.psi.net (relay1.smtp.psi.net [38.8.14.2]) > by ns1.vrx.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7FBCBF0FC > for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Fri, 10 Dec 1999 00:04:40 -0500 (EST) >Received: from [38.185.121.3] (helo=PCServemail) > by relay1.smtp.psi.net with esmtp (Exim 1.90 #1) > for [EMAIL PROTECTED] > id 11w9jD-0007gW-00; Thu, 9 Dec 1999 14:59:51 -0500 >Received: by PCServemail with XtraMail-SMTP/POP3-Server (v1.11 58230005172) for ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> at Thu, 9 Dec 99 12:45:50 +-700 >Message-ID: <003701bf427f$258b01d0$0a79b926@sdgfsg> >From: "Carl Pratt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: "Al Gore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Cc: "Esther Dyson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > "Chip Pickering" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > "Connie Morella" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > "Tamar Frankel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > "Thomas Davis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > "Gil Gutknecht" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > "Eddie Bernice Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > "Jim Barcia" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > "Mark Harrington" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > "Richard Russell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > "Paul Scolese" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > "James Tierney" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > "William Daley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > "Madeleine Albright" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > "Mike Roberts" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > "Theresa Amato" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > "Domain Policy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > "Paris draft list" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > "James Love" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Jay Fenello" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > "Ronda Hauben" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > "Karl Auerbach" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > "George Conrades" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > "Becky Burr" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > "Larry Irving" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > "Gordon Cook" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > "Tony Rutkowski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > "Tom Lowenhaupt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "IFWP" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > "Nick Patience" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > "Jeri Clausing" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > "\"U.S. Ho. of Reps. Commerce Committee\"" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: What about the little guy? >Date: Thu, 9 Dec 1999 12:53:29 -0700 >MIME-Version: 1.0 >Content-Type: multipart/alternative; > boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0034_01BF4244.63FE9020" >X-Priority: 3 >X-MSMail-Priority: Normal >X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2014.211 >X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2014.211 > >This is a multi-part message in MIME format. > >------=_NextPart_000_0034_01BF4244.63FE9020 >Content-Type: text/plain; > charset="iso-8859-1" >Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > >ICANN Please, > > You have set out to protect the interests of big companies and lawyers = >who know how to obtain trademarks and rights that most of the rest of us = >have no clue about. For example, should Disney now be able to make = >claim to GoTo.com because goto contains the word go in it? These are = >two titans who can slug it out in court and otherwise, but what about = >the little guy. If I own Gotomovers.com, am I going to risk losing my = >domain name because goto.com has a "trademark" monopoly on a commonly = >used word. If your argument is that cybersquatters are extorting from = >legitimate business, then you must come from a communist viewpoint. The = >reason the US has high availability of goods and services, full = >employment, and a robust economy is because of "goods-squatters." They = >purchase goods and then resell them. It is the way of capitalism. >=20 > Let's take another example. If a "landsquatter" puchases land next to = >a major corporation thinking that the corporation may need the land in = >the future for exapansion, are they not extorting from the company by = >acting where the major corporation has failed to act? What if another = >business bought the land instead of the "squatter" and developed it. = >Wouldn't it cost the exapanding company much more to purchase the = >improved land as apposed to the undeveloped land? You are way off base = >with your guidelines. We could talk of "stocksquatters", = >"commoditysquatters", and on and on. The reason Russia is languishing = >so horrifically in it's economy is because there are not enough willing = >"squatters" who will take risks, and realize rewards. > > I bring all of this up to show you how misguided you have become by the = >INTERESTS that have formed your governing provisions. I remember = >reading about the guy who registered Gateway.com. He had a real = >business at the site, but was sued by Gateway 2000 for trademark = >infringement and dilution. The poor guy had his domain name extorted by = >the big bad Gateway 2000 because they had the muscle in the courts to = >wrest the name from him. Gateway 2000 is hardly Gateway.com, but the = >LAW worked for them. Do you think that big business needed protection = >in this scenario? The answer is certainly not. >=20 > Let's take my case. You have no provision in you manditory arbitration = >for someone like me who has had his domain name taken from him because = >he was unwilling to sell it. I own (I believe I still do) EFAX.COM. = >The company who wanted the name from me could not get me to sell it to = >them, so they contacted a third party and had that third party transfer = >my domain name to them as if she was me. The third party has said on = >tape that she told EFAX that she did not own the domain, but that she = >thought I was not going to use it, so she would transfer it to them. = >She did not own my name, yet was able to transfer it. Network Solutions = >has yet to reply to my complaint about the transfer, and it has been = >over a year. Now, with ICANN, I see that I still have no remedy in your = >new arbitration rules, because you are solely concerned with so called = >"cybersquatters." The only option I have is to file suit, which no = >lawyer is willing to do for me, even on a contingency basis, without my = >putting up at least $10,000. I do not have that kind money. > > I hope you realize that you are bought by big dollar interests. I hope = >you realize that you have no more concern for the little guy than a = >professional basketball team. I hope you sleep well at night... > >=20 >Carl Pratt >"EFAX.COM is my domain name!" > > >------=_NextPart_000_0034_01BF4244.63FE9020 >Content-Type: text/html; > charset="iso-8859-1" >Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > ><!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"> ><HTML><HEAD> ><META content=3D"text/html; charset=3Diso-8859-1" = >http-equiv=3DContent-Type> ><META content=3D"MSHTML 5.00.2014.210" name=3DGENERATOR> ><STYLE></STYLE> ></HEAD> ><BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff> ><DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>ICANN Please,</FONT></DIV> ><DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV> ><DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2> You have set out to protect the = >interests of=20 >big companies and lawyers who know how to obtain trademarks and rights = >that most=20 >of the rest of us have no clue about. For example, should Disney = >now be=20 >able to make claim to GoTo.com because goto contains the word = >go in=20 >it? These are two titans who can slug it out in court and = >otherwise, but=20 >what about the little guy. If I own Gotomovers.com, am I going to = >risk=20 >losing my domain name because goto.com has a "trademark" monopoly on a = >commonly=20 >used word. If your argument is that cybersquatters are extorting = >from=20 >legitimate business, then you must come from a communist = >viewpoint. The=20 >reason the US has high availability of goods and services, full = >employment, and=20 >a robust economy is because of "goods-squatters." They purchase = >goods and=20 >then resell them. It is the way of capitalism.</DIV> ><DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV> ><DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2> Let's take another example. = >If a=20 >"landsquatter" puchases land next to a major corporation thinking that = >the=20 >corporation may need the land in the future for exapansion, are they not = > >extorting from the company by acting where the major corporation has = >failed to=20 >act? What if another business bought the land instead of the = >"squatter"=20 >and developed it. Wouldn't it cost the exapanding company much = >more to=20 >purchase the improved land as apposed to the undeveloped land? You = >are way=20 >off base with your guidelines. We could talk of "stocksquatters",=20 >"commoditysquatters", and on and on. The reason Russia is = >languishing so=20 >horrifically in it's economy is because there are not enough willing = >"squatters"=20 >who will take risks, and realize rewards.</FONT></DIV> ><DIV> </DIV> ><DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2> I bring all of this up to show = >you how=20 >misguided you have become by the INTERESTS that have formed your = >governing=20 >provisions. I remember reading about the guy who registered=20 >Gateway.com. He had a real business at the site, but was sued by = >Gateway=20 >2000 for trademark infringement and dilution. The poor guy had his = >domain=20 >name extorted by the big bad Gateway 2000 because they had the muscle in = >the=20 >courts to wrest the name from him. Gateway 2000 is hardly = >Gateway.com, but=20 >the LAW worked for them. Do you think that big business needed = >protection=20 >in this scenario? The answer is certainly not.</FONT></DIV> ><DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV> ><DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2> Let's take my case. You = >have no=20 >provision in you manditory arbitration for someone like me who has had = >his=20 >domain name taken from him because he was unwilling to sell it. I = >own (I=20 >believe I still do) EFAX.COM. The company who wanted the name from = >me=20 >could not get me to sell it to them, so they contacted a third = >party and=20 >had that third party transfer my domain name to them as if she was = >me. The=20 >third party has said on tape that she told EFAX that she did not own the = >domain,=20 >but that she thought I was not going to use it, so she would transfer it = >to=20 >them. She did not own my name, yet was able to transfer it. = >Network=20 >Solutions has yet to reply to my complaint about the transfer, and = >it has=20 >been over a year. Now, with ICANN, I see that I still have no = >remedy in=20 >your new arbitration rules, because you are solely concerned with so = >called=20 >"cybersquatters" The only option I have is to file suit, which no = >lawyer=20 >is willing to do for me, even on a contingency basis, without my putting = >up at=20 >least $10,000. I do not have that kind money.</FONT></DIV> ><DIV> </DIV> ><DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2> I hope you realize that you are = >bought by big=20 >dollar interests. I hope you realize that you have no more concern = >for the=20 >little guy than a professional basketball team. I hope you sleep = >well at=20 >night...</FONT></DIV> ><DIV> </DIV> ><DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV> ><DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Carl Pratt</FONT></DIV> ><DIV>"EFAX.COM is my domain name!"</DIV> ><DIV> </DIV></FONT></BODY></HTML> > >------=_NextPart_000_0034_01BF4244.63FE9020-- > > > -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] �A committee is a cul-de-sac down which ideas are lured and then quietly strangled." --Sir Barnett Cocks
