NCSG-DISCUSS Archives

NCSG-Discuss

NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show HTML Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Milton L Mueller <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Milton L Mueller <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Mon, 4 May 2015 13:06:55 +0000
Content-Type:
multipart/alternative
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (2323 bytes) , text/html (6 kB)
Thanks for clarifying, Sam, sorry I misunderstood the intent of your message



From: Sam Lanfranco [mailto:[log in to unmask]]

Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2015 5:43 PM

To: Milton L Mueller; [log in to unmask]

Subject: Re: Comments on the Draft Rights Protection Mechanism Review paper - now finishing ICANN Public Comment



Milton,



Not sure what has fogged your glasses here ( :-) ) but the question IS being asked of the ICANN process. How you read that as blame against Kathy's good work escapes me. If there is a constituency problem here it is not a problem with the constituencies but a problem for the constituencies. It appears that the constituency (NCUC in this case) proposes and ICANN either disposes or ignores. Not a healthy sign for a multistakeholder consensus governance model. On 30/04/2015 4:09 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote:

Sam

You should be asking ICANN that question, not Kathy. NCUC, with Kathy in the lead, has been noting these kinds of problems for more than 15 years. We’re happy that you and Timothe are starting to notice them, too. But to blame ICANN’s bias towards trademark owners on Kathy or NCUC is incredible.



I remain confused on outcomes here, not on intent. In response to Timothe's posting I referenced the recent decision on the trumpcard.com domain name as an example of how easy it is for a trademark holder, registering the trademark after the fact of the domain name registration, to take the domain name. This was a case of the owner in pursuit of legitimate business interests tied to that name for seven centuries, and operating two years before the trademark was applied for. The trademark was granted in pursuit of something else - selling credit cards. This was not a case of false representation nor of cyber squatting.



Where were the ICANN protections there? What am I missing?















--



------------------------------------------------



"It is a disgrace to be rich and honoured



in an unjust state" -Confucius



------------------------------------------------



Dr Sam Lanfranco (Prof Emeritus & Senior Scholar)



Econ, York U., Toronto, Ontario, CANADA - M3J 1P3



email: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>   Skype: slanfranco



blog:  http://samlanfranco.blogspot.com



Phone: +1 613-476-0429 cell: +1 416-816-2852


ATOM RSS1 RSS2