pic13198.pcx)
Extension:
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
cc: "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
(bcc: Joe Sims/JonesDay)
Sub
Joe Sims wrote:
> As to your "slippery slope" argument, it is a legitimate concern, but I
> hope (and think) that we have not started down it here.
> There is in fact a principled distinction between having a domain-name
> dispute resolution policy and content
> censorship. Assignment of unique
>[As it happens, I don't see why a uniform policy on commercial disputes
>involving trademarks is all that urgent, nor part of the technical
>functions of ICANN.
It's a neccessity because technically, without this, there would not
be buy-in from the immesnly powerful trademark lobby.
Look at th
I am delighted that you believe that the press communique is entirely
consistent with the board resolutions. I hope everyone else is of that
view as well.
I was concerned about this paragraph:
"The Initial Board noted that a uniform dispute settlement mechanism was a
necessary element of a comp
On Wed, 23 Jun 1999, Joe Sims wrote:
> First, contrary to the assertion in your posting, the Board did not
> endorse a "expand-WIPO-arbitration strategy" in its Berlin resolution.
> WIPO recommended
> arbitration only for disputes involving abusive registrations. What the
> Board resolution endo
___
This message is intended for the individual or entity named above. If you
are not the intended
recipient, please do not read, copy, use or disclose this communication to
others; also please
notify the sender by
At 09:26 AM 6/7/99 , Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law wrote:
>One enormous danger of this expand-WIPO-arbitration strategy endorsed in
>the ICANN Press communique is that there will not be judicial review in
>the US (and a few other countries), while there will be in much of the
>rest of t
One enormous danger of this expand-WIPO-arbitration strategy endorsed in
the ICANN Press communique is that there will not be judicial review in
the US (and a few other countries), while there will be in much of the
rest of the world. The result will be to put US registrants (and others
similarly
Esther Dyson a écrit:
> Basically, the sense of the board is that this policy, whatever it
> eventually involves, should probably address all (nonpolitical) disputes
> over names, not just the "abusive" registrations that WIPO focuses on.
> ("all commercial disputes linked" to domain name regis
Esther and all,
This is all well and fine, however we have a justice system to
address these sort of situations. To attempt to impose regulations
that are extraneous to that justice system or other justice systems
outside the US for example, and in particular the WIPO RFC-3
"Final Report" reco
My server has been rejecting mail lately (a Freudian slip perhaps!), so I
missed this till now.
Basically, the sense of the board is that this policy, whatever it
eventually involves, should probably address all (nonpolitical) disputes
over names, not just the "abusive" registrations that WIP
Gordon and all,
I would have to agree with Gordon here. ICANN and in specific
Mike Roberts, Esther Dyson, and Joe Simms have not been conducting
themselves in the best interest of the stakeholder community as a whole
in as much as remaining neutral in their attitude towards NSI. If I were
in
cook: when mike roberts instead of maintaining professional neutrality to
NSI stand up and speaks in berlin of NSI as everyone's favorite monopoly
and registrar criteria give ICANN power to disenfranchise NSI essentially
at will, I'd say NSI has reason to be extremely careful
Icann has bee
On Sat, Jun 05, 1999 at 12:00:13AM -0400, Gordon Cook wrote:
> with the hope that NSI will be stupid enough to sign their registrar
> guidelines, they are trying to use NSI to construct a laboratory to be
> used in luring the rest of us inside so that they can do to us whatever
> they wish. i ha
with the hope that NSI will be stupid enough to sign their registrar
guidelines, they are trying to use NSI to construct a laboratory to be
used in luring the rest of us inside so that they can do to us whatever
they wish. i have talked to four different people today and all four are
of the emph
On Fri, 4 Jun 99 22:10:45 -0400, "Bret A. Fausett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>I'm confused.
>
>I just re-read the ICANN Press Communiqué from Berlin.
>
>In the press release (written by the PR firm, not ICANN) is this sentence:
>
> The Initial Board noted that a uniform dispute settlement
>
Bret A. Fausett a écrit:
> In the press release (written by the PR firm, not ICANN) is this sentence:
>
> The Initial Board noted that a uniform dispute settlement
> mechanism was a necessary element of a competitive
> registrar system. The Initial Board noted that the
> scope of this po
I'm confused.
I just re-read the ICANN Press Communiqué from Berlin.
In the press release (written by the PR firm, not ICANN) is this sentence:
The Initial Board noted that a uniform dispute settlement
mechanism was a necessary element of a competitive
registrar system. The Initial Boa
18 matches
Mail list logo
