| | At Large Membership and Civil Society Participation in ICANN |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
|
Did Jeff Davies find a legal loophole?
|
Log in/Create an Account
| Top
| 143 comments
|
Search Discussion
|
|
|
|
The Fine Print:
The following comments are owned by whoever posted them.
We are not responsible for them in any way.
|
|
 |
I saw that post, and also replied... I cited this ICANN agreement as evidence that ICANN and Afilias had agreed in advance to require a valid trademark to be held by any sunrise challenger who wishes the domain transferred rather than cancelled, and subjected false trademark claims in this phase to further challenge just like false claims in the sunrise.
Davies responded that no such thing was in any agreement he made with WIPO or with the registrar he dealt with afterward, in filing the challenge and in registering the domains after winning it, and when they later attempted to add such a clause it was illegal because this was modified after the fact.
If this is actually the case, then clearly somebody (the registrars and/or Afilias and/or WIPO) violated the terms of the ICANN/Afilias agreement with regard to the sunrise challenge rules.
However, I'd like to see an actual copy of the court decisions in question before I believe him on it.
|
|
|
|
[ Reply to This | Parent
]
|
| | |
|
|
[ Reply to This | Parent
]
|
| | |
|
|
[ Reply to This | Parent
]
|
|
|
|
The main basic difference between "conspiracy to commit" and "aid and abet" is:
"while an agreement is an essential element of the crime of conspiracy, aid sufficient for accomplice liability may be given without any agreement between the parties."
W. LaFave & A. Scott, Substantive Criminal Law, § 6.8 at 156-57 (1986).
Those that aid and abet are punishable as principal lawbreaker.
I believe it can be proven that the United States Department of Commerce, through their agents (ICANN), did knowingly aid and abet corporations to break Trademark and Competition Law - also abridge words people can use, so violating First Amendment.
|
|
|
|
[ Reply to This | Parent
]
|
| | 20 replies beneath your current threshold. |
Privacy Policy: We will not knowingly give out your personal data -- other than identifying your postings in the way you direct by setting your configuration options -- without a court order. All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their
respective owner. The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008 by ICANNWatch.Org. This web site was made with Slashcode, a web portal system written in perl. Slashcode is Free Software released under the GNU/GPL license.
You can syndicate our headlines in .rdf, .rss, or .xml. Domain registration services donated by DomainRegistry.com
|
Did Jeff Davies find a legal loophole?