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] Skype: slanfranco blog: http://samlanfranco.blogspot.com Phone: +1 613-476-0429 cell: +1 416-816-2852