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:
[log in to unmask]"
type="cite">
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