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