Re: 60 day waiting period

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

Carl,

Carl Oppedahl wrote:
> 
> At 01:33 AM 01/13/97 +0000, Jeff Williams wrote:
> 
> >Michael,
> 
> >Michael Dillon wrote:
> >>
> >> On Sun, 12 Jan 1997, Karl Denninger wrote:
> >>
> >> > Go get declaratory statements from all 180-odd court national court
> systems
> >> > which supposedly would "pay heed" to this.
> >> >
> >> > With all due respect, Carl, you're blowing smoke.  You have absolutely no
> >> > basis for your position on this other than your beliefs.  Which, when you
> >> > consider disrupting the business activities of *hundreds of thousands of
> >> > firms*, isn't enough .
> >>
> >> I think the point Karl is getting at here is that in most of the world,
> >> courts do not set case-law precedents but merely apply the Civil Code as
> >> written by the country's legislators. Thus if the 60-day period is not
> >> written into the laws, it doesn't have any effect.
> >
> >  This i true in all of asia and a good part of Europe.  I have
> >commented
> >along these lines several times on this list.  Unless you have a
> >WOrld court precident or inactment, you have no legal footing
> >internationaly
> >with a 60 day waiting period.  Even than only those countries who wish
> >to observe those International laws to this effect, would necessarly
> >comply.  That narrows things down a little bit.  It has been somewhat
> >popular in recent World court rulings that member countries in some
> >instances do not comply even whan the are a strong supporter of the
> >world court.  SO now  you have even less solid cround for the 60 Day
> >waiting limit.
> >
> >  For these reasong and others that I hav already posted, it is my
> >belief that the 60 day waiting period is at best a two edged blade
> >here.  Therefore, under current international conditions I find
> >it indavisable.
> 
> The number of people who know more about the courts of the world than I do
> seems to grow.  I ask you, too, to please favor the IAHC and the members of
> the Internet community with your knowledge.  How, given what you have said
> about the courts of all of Asia and a good part of Europe, do you propose
> to deal with the problem of insufficient URL and domain name stability due
> to challenges by covetous trademark owners?

  Carl, thank you for you favorable comments in my respect here.  As to
how to deal with URL and domain name stability on and international
basis,
is a very complex and difficult problem.  It is, in my humble opinion, 
going to require by treatys, to accomplish this in a meaningfull way. 
That
being said, I can immagine that to be a daunting task.  I model such as 
what the IAHC is perposing in the draft of course can be presented, but 
I believe at present, as I have stated befor, I think it wiser to not 
make it part of the Draft itself, rather a seperate document.  

  Now, this may weaken in some folks minds, the draft in terms of 
Trademark and Domain name stability on a global basis.  I am not sure
that
thought is really true, due to diffrences in National law in these areas
between diffrent governments.  I think you can immagine or extrapilate
what I am thinking here.  Daunting is it now?

Regards,

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