Re: where the waiting peroid came from

["Leo Smith" <barter@ntplx.net>]

I agree with your assesment...the entire section regarding trademark
infringement precautions should be TOTALLY deleted. IAHC is not here to
construct weapons designed for attorney's convenience and manipulation.
Leo Smith
----------
: From: John Leslie <john@jlc.net>
: To: iahc-discuss@iahc.org
: Subject: Re: where the waiting peroid came from
: Date: Thursday, January 02, 1997 12:49 AM
: 
: Rick H. Wesson wrote:
: > 
: > Folks check out where the waiting period came from.
: > 
: > http://plaza.interport.net/inta/intaprop.htm
: 
:    I'm not sure whether comments to INTA will be effective -- it's
: obviously a group of (apparently U.S.) lawyers looking first of all
: at their own interests.
: 
:    From their document:
: ] 
: ] Some may argue that this Proposal is not a solution on the dispute
: ] front because it requires a victim of infringement to go to court,
: ] and incur substantial cost and inconvenience in the process.
: 
:    I would argue that. Dispute resolution should not be forced on an
: overloaded court system if other reasonable alternatives are available.
: 
: ] But going to court is how civilized societies deal with infringements
: ] of rights and other wrongs.
: 
:    Their prejudice is obvious. :^(
: 
:    Most societies deal with most infringements of rights without going
: to court. It is necessary to hear an occasional case in court to
establish
: the precedent -- future cases are usually resolved less formally (until
: someone thinks s/he can convince a judge to rule differently).
: 
: ] There is no legitimate reason why domain names should be treated
: ] differently than other forms of infringement.
: 
:    There is _every_ reason why domain names should be treated differently
: from most forms of trademark infringement -- domain names are essentially
: addresses. They should be treated as we treat other addresses -- not as
: we would treat commercial printing.
: 
:    The first thing netizens should expect of domain names is stability.
: We should not just expect it; we should demand it. It is not reasonable
: for a URL to suddenly point somewhere else just because some judge who
: doesn't understand the 'net yet says there's a trademark infringement.
: 
: ] On the other hand, when one wants to participate in society in a manner
: ] that may result in the infringement of another's rights, one must be
: ] accountable for one's activities.
: 
:    I'm all for accountability, but my idea of accountability is a bit
: different from these lawyers'.
: 
:    They want to have every SLD require annual renewals "in writing and
: signed with a real signature"; and they want 90 days to sit on initial
: applications (also "in writing and signed with a real signature")
: before letting the registrant use the domain. Is this "accountability"
: or is it just slowing down the Internet to a lawyer's pace?
: 
:    They also want every registrant to specify "name and address of the
: designated agent for service of process". Does the Post Office require
: a designated agent for service of process before they let you use a
: postal address?
: 
:    Besides, any actual infringement would come from some particular
: content published on a particular host which might be registred under
: that SLD. They can serve process all they want, but without establishing
: that the person (individual or corporate) that registered the SLD has
: accepted responsibility for _everything_ done on subdomains, they won't
: have done anything to further accountability. They're preparing to
: fight last year's legal battle. :^(
: 
: ] Again, there is no reason why this principle of civilized society
: ] should not apply to activities on the Internet.
: 
:    Except, perhaps, that the Internet is international in scope, and
: they've described a process designed for courts of limited geographical
: jurisdiction.
: 
:    That there should be accountability for activities that infringe
: another's rights, I absolutely agree. Whether what they've proposed is
: a reasonable system of accountability, I'll let you judge.
: 
: >From requirements for SLD application:
: ] 
: ] that applicant admits to the personal and subject matter jurisdiction
: ] and venue of any competent tribunal in the country where the NIC
resides
: 
:    They want _all_ actions in U.S. courts! (The referenced document is
: proposing changes to the current InterNIC system).
: 
:    Furthermore, they want challengers to be able to choose _any_ court
: in the United States (not just the ones near Herndon, Virginia)! Is
: the choice of a court thousands of miles from the infringer's home a
: reasonable system of accountability?
: 
: ] for purposes of any action brought under trademark law, unfair
: ] competition laws, or similar/related laws arising out of actual or
: ] intended use of the domain name applied for;
: 
:    Did I get that right? They want me to agree to be sued in an unnamed
: court thousands of miles from where I live and work because someone
: alleges I may have _intended_ to violate somebody's rights? Is that
: about "accountability" at all? Or is that about thought control?
: 
: ] and applicant waives all rights to challenge personal jurisdiction,
: ] subject matter jurisdiction, and/or venue.
: 
:    Honest! that's what this document says! If you want to register a
: SLD, they ask you to waive any rights to have the case heard where the
: infringement occurred. What was that case where a California couple
: was tried in a Tennessee court for publishing obscenity (in California)
: -- using Tennessee standards for what the community might find offensive?
: 
:    This does not look to me like a system of accountability -- it looks
: like a system for increasing lawyers' income. :^(
: 
: --
: John Leslie <john@jlc.net>