Hi Robin,

I do not know how to express well how I feel: you deserve a BIG ORDER OF 
MERIT. Without your professional knowledge AND your commitment to our 
cause we would be hopelessly at the losing end of this fight. Thanks a lot.

Secondly, it is probably difficult to collect the type of information 
Liz is asking for - and you handed it to the NCUC community. An answer 
would require a similarly thorough professional knowledge, and I am not 
sure how many of us, in other countries, in the NCUC community and our 
friends and allies would have it.

Therefore, I think what is most important is to keep things open - as 
you do in your argumentation: it is none of ICANN's business to set 
international law.  Full stop. That is the most important argument I can 
see.

But based on this, it is very helpful to see all the specific cases 
which you quote, basically from the US context, which shows that even 
for the US situation things are not as simple and straightforward as 
Mike Rodenbaugh and others say. They are just accustomed to be normally 
in a winning mood with their legal argumentation based on laws which 
often have been made to support their case - of the big business, they 
defend.

But ultimately,  I often remember a very crucial debate in a high level 
finance committee in Germany many years ago (on an international support 
action) - where one member questioned whether it is "legal" to support a 
certain critical group in another country. Then, another, a kind of 
gray-haired senior, said: "I do not know if it is legal, but it is 
legitimate."

There was quite some commotion, about such a "nonsensical" 
argumentation. Then this guy asked back, if the rest remembers anything 
from the time when a certain group of people ruled the country, during 
the time of the last big war from 1945 to 1945. "We did a lot of things 
which were not legal, but we had to do them because they were legitimate."

=

I am aware that my recollections and reference are from a different time 
and context - when an "absolute power" tried to decide what is right and 
what is wrong. But I cannot help to think that the present IP and WIPO 
and TRIPS ideology is also not completely unrelated to structures of 
absolute power that try to impress the rest of the world  by a "might 
makes right" ideology.

Thanks again, Robin, and I hope many others will join our efforts,


Norbert

=

Robin Gross wrote:
> Is there any input from outside the US regarding case law on the 
> boundary between free expression and trademark rights in domain names?
>
> Thanks,
> Robin
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject:     Re: [gtld-council] NCUC proposals to amend gnso 
> recommendations on new gtld policy
> Date:     Tue, 5 Jun 2007 01:15:20 +0200
> From:     Liz Williams <[log in to unmask]>
> To:     [log in to unmask]
> CC:     [log in to unmask]
> References:     <[log in to unmask]> 
> <[log in to unmask]> 
> <[log in to unmask]>
>
>
>
> Hi Robin
>
> Thanks for this ongoing debate.  Do you have any other examples that  
> would help the discussion outside the US?  Not all countries have any  
> First Amendment-like rights and it would be useful to have this  
> discussion on a broader basis.
>
> Liz


-- 
If you want to know what is going on in Cambodia,
please visit us regularly - you can find something new every day:

ht0p://cambodiamirror.wordpress.com