Re: 60 day period

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Vince,

Vince Wolodkin wrote:
> 
> Simon Higgs wrote:
> >
> > At 11:38 AM -0500 1/10/97, Vince Wolodkin wrote:
> >
> > > Wow!  I am so happy a representative of INTA is on the IAHC.  In
> > > retrospect this was probably a mistake(ditto for WIPO) since as Mr Higgs
> > > points out RFC 1591 explicitly says that registries WILL NOT be involved
> > > in trademark issues but will instead just provide contact info to both
> > > parties.
> > >
> >
> > I don't think it's a mistake to have them on the committee. I've met
> > both Albert and Sally and hold them both in high regard. Their input is
> > definately needed to clarify the intellectual property issues.
> 
> Why should the registry/CORE/IAHC be considering intellectual property
> issues?  Shouldn't that be left to the courts?

  I think that the IAHC feels that it must and should state a possition
so that the courts can have a basis for handeling intellectual property
considerations here.  This is a touchy subject.  Many US companies are
struggling with this currently, as is our Supream court currently. 
There
are several cases pending in this area currently.  This in not to
mention
the international implications.  

  I agree that taking a strong possition in this area has some very 
deffinate risks.  I would take a lesser possition myself, but I would
state it clearly and have it as a possition paper, and not part of 
any DNS Draft spicificaly.


Regars,

-- 
Jeffrey A. Williams
DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java Development Eng.
Information Eng. Group. 
Phone :972-447-1878
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com