Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1533
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST          Friday, December 20 2002          Volume 01 : Number 1533

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 10:24:22 -0800 (PST)
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] good bye

So sorry Dr. Berryhill but the lights have been on with nobody home ever 
since TR and AS took over and sided with all the people who are now 
congratulating them on closing the GA.
e
> 
> Will the last public participant in the ICANN process please turn out
> the lights when you leave?
> 
> Thank you.
> 
> 
> 
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 11:03:28 -0800 (PST)
From: George Kirikos <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] NewZealand.com WIPO decision

Hello,

The decision is here:

http://arbiter.wipo.int/domains/decisions/html/2002/d2002-0754.html

It's good to see that the panel made the right decision this time,
unlike the case of NewZealand.biz which was previously discussed on
this list and elsewhere.

Sincerely,

George Kirikos
http://www.GlobalDomination.com/ :)
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 09:27:35 +1300
From: Steven Heath <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] NewZealand.com WIPO decision

> 
> http://arbiter.wipo.int/domains/decisions/html/2002/d2002-0754.html
> 
> It's good to see that the panel made the right decision this time,
> unlike the case of NewZealand.biz which was previously discussed on
> this list and elsewhere.

Even more interesting to read the BNA Law summary of the decision:

"A three-member WIPO ICANN UDRP panel has ruled against the Government of
New Zealand in its bid to obtain the transfer of the newzealand.com domain.
The panel found that the country does not have a trademark in the name New
Zealand. Further, the panel termed the action "baseless" and "misconceived"
as it unanimously found that the government engaged in reverse domain name
hijacking in bringing the action." 

Steven Heath
www.nznews.org.nz
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 22:34:34 +0100 (CET)
From: Marc Schneiders <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] NewZealand.com WIPO decision

On Fri, 20 Dec 2002, at 09:27 [=GMT+1300], Steven Heath wrote:

> Even more interesting to read the BNA Law summary of the decision:
>
> Further, the panel termed the action "baseless" and "misconceived"
> as it unanimously found that the government engaged in reverse domain name
> hijacking in bringing the action."

Congratulations to the NZ government. I don't think any other government
has been declared to be a domain name hijacker. (The decision occurs very
rarely and governments/city councils tend to win.) A Book of Records entry
for the country named after a province in mine!

The fact that the NZ government did file the complaint, shows that even
among those elected by the people, attempting theft is not a big deal. Or
is it that the UDRP, as applied, is succeeding in misleading good
politicians into believing Everything Trademark Lawyers Dream of When They
Do Not Have a Nightmare?

Is there any progress to report about the pending review of the UDRP by
ICANN, due for end 2000?

Will the evaluation of new gTLDs also take so long to get going? I hope
not.

There are some facts we best ignore, right?

- -- 
[01] All ideas are vintage not new or perfect.
http://logoff.org/

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 16:30:04 -0600
From: "Rodrigo  Orenday Serrato" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] NewZealand.com WIPO decision

Notwithstanding this decision, I still sustain that the naming of Sovereign
States is a matter of public international law and public interest, and that
no one but a State should be allowed to use neither its official
denomination nor its common name, absent other characters capable of making
it sufficiently distinctive.

Atentamente, Regards
Rodrigo Orenday Serratos

- -----Mensaje original-----
De: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]En nombre de Marc
Schneiders
Enviado el: Jueves, 19 de Diciembre de 2002 03:35 PM
Para: Steven Heath
CC: [email-masked]
Asunto: RE: [ga] NewZealand.com WIPO decision

On Fri, 20 Dec 2002, at 09:27 [=GMT+1300], Steven Heath wrote:

> Even more interesting to read the BNA Law summary of the decision:
>
> Further, the panel termed the action "baseless" and "misconceived"
> as it unanimously found that the government engaged in reverse domain name
> hijacking in bringing the action."

Congratulations to the NZ government. I don't think any other government
has been declared to be a domain name hijacker. (The decision occurs very
rarely and governments/city councils tend to win.) A Book of Records entry
for the country named after a province in mine!

The fact that the NZ government did file the complaint, shows that even
among those elected by the people, attempting theft is not a big deal. Or
is it that the UDRP, as applied, is succeeding in misleading good
politicians into believing Everything Trademark Lawyers Dream of When They
Do Not Have a Nightmare?

Is there any progress to report about the pending review of the UDRP by
ICANN, due for end 2000?

Will the evaluation of new gTLDs also take so long to get going? I hope
not.

There are some facts we best ignore, right?

- --
[01] All ideas are vintage not new or perfect.
http://logoff.org/

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 17:37:28 -0500
From: Erick Iriarte Ahon <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] NewZealand.com WIPO decision

y para que tambien venga algun comentario en español:

  Una Reyna en apuros.. sobre Newzealand.com y Newzealand.biz
Enviado por 19 Dic 2002 - 05:22
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  En menos de tres meses, "Su Majestad con derecho a su Gobierno en Nueva 
Zelanda, en defensa de los ciudadanos, sus organizacios y el Estado de 
Nueva Zelanda," ha ganado el dominio newzealand.biz y ha perdido el 
newzealand.com. Ambos casos fueron llevados ante el Centro de Arbitrajes de 
la OMPI.

Ciertamente que hay cosas curiosas en los casos.

En el Newzealand.biz la defensa de "Su Majestad" presento una serie de 
solicitudes de registro de marcas en las categorías 22, 29, 31, 33, 41 
(Cabe destacar que las marcas fueron presentadas el 29 de Junio del 2001). 
Indicaba que el dueño de las marcas indicadas eran "los ciudadanos de Nueva 
Zelanda, dado que sirven para identificar los bienes y servicios producidos 
por y para los ciudadanos, organizaciones y el Estado de Nueva Zelanda; y 
diferenciarlos de los bienes y servicios producidos por otros ciudadanos de 
otros países"

Los que poseían el nombre de dominio "se allanaron" a la petición, al 
parecer debido a que tenían tambien otros dominios y les interesaba llegar 
a algun acuerdo.

Pero "Su Majestad" no contenta con tener el .biz se fue a por el .com, y 
ahora hubo algo que le fallo.

"Su Majestad" se debe haber quedado plasmada cuando vió que la resolución 
del Panel Administrativo no soló indicaba que no procedía la solicitud de 
transferencia de nombre de dominio sino que "existe un intento de reverse 
domain name hijacking (secuestro inverso de nombre de dominio", ademas que 
el demandante estaba "usando la política de la UDRP de mala fe".

Más que paso aquí? en que parte de la historia se gana en una y se pierde 
en otra?

La situación se presentó en el alegato presentado por el demandante quien 
indicó en el caso newzealand.com lo mismo que en el caso del .biz, la misma 
argumentación, de hecho una argumentación válida y que llevó precisamente 
el germen del problema.

Virtual Countries INC, quienes poseían el nombre de dominio en cuestión, 
alegó que tenía la marca New Zealand registrada en USA (US trademark 
registration number 2557448, presentadada el 11 de Febrero del 200, 
indicando Newzealand.com para una empresa de publicidad.). Esto fue una 
inicial diferencia con el caso newzealand.biz dado que, Virtual Countries 
presentaba un derecho marcario incluso anterior al alegado por "Su Majestad".

Más la real y efectiva defensa fue dada no por Virtual Countries, sino por 
el "Gobierno de Nueva Zelanda", quienes en marzo del 2002, en respuesta al 
"Cuestionario sobre Protección de Nombres de Países en el Sistema de 
Nombres de Dominio" indicó: "La Ley, la costumbre y la práctica [legal] en 
Nueva Zelanda no imposibilita el uso de nombre de países bajo ninguna 
circunstancia. Nueva Zelanda no ve ninguna razón para que los nombres de 
dominio se excluyan de esta regla general".

Es que acaso no se ponen de acuerdo dentro del gobierno de Nueva Zelanda?.

Lo que si es cierto es que están cambiando y se estan haciendo cada vez mas 
interesante las argumentaciones de defensa de los poseedores de nombre de 
dominio. Un caso que marcara una posible defensa para aquellos que tengan 
nombres de dominio iguales a los nombres de países, y que tambien da 
algunas pautas a los gobiernos para recuperar sus dominios... Hay que ver 
quien gana la carrera.

Mas Información:
Caso Newzealand.Com
(http://arbiter.wipo.int/domains/decisions/html/2002/d2002-0754.html)

Caso Newzealand.Biz
(http://arbiter.wipo.int/domains/decisions/html/2002/dbiz2002-00270.html)

Fuente: 
http://latinoamericann.derecho.org.ar/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=159&mode=thread&order=1&thold=0

Erick Iriarte Ahon
Proyecto: LatinoamerICANN
http://latinoamericann.derecho.org.ar

At 09:27 a.m. 20/12/2002 +1300, Steven Heath wrote:

> >
> > http://arbiter.wipo.int/domains/decisions/html/2002/d2002-0754.html
> >
> > It's good to see that the panel made the right decision this time,
> > unlike the case of NewZealand.biz which was previously discussed on
> > this list and elsewhere.
>
>Even more interesting to read the BNA Law summary of the decision:
>
>"A three-member WIPO ICANN UDRP panel has ruled against the Government of
>New Zealand in its bid to obtain the transfer of the newzealand.com domain.
>The panel found that the country does not have a trademark in the name New
>Zealand. Further, the panel termed the action "baseless" and "misconceived"
>as it unanimously found that the government engaged in reverse domain name
>hijacking in bringing the action."
>
>Steven Heath
>www.nznews.org.nz
>--
>This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
>Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
>("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
>Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 18:34:37 -0500 (EST)
From: "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] NewZealand.com WIPO decision

And on what existing principle of public international law do you ground
this amazaing assertion?

On Thu, 19 Dec 2002, Rodrigo  Orenday Serrato wrote:

> Notwithstanding this decision, I still sustain that the naming of Sovereign
> States is a matter of public international law and public interest, and that
> no one but a State should be allowed to use neither its official
> denomination nor its common name, absent other characters capable of making
> it sufficiently distinctive.
> 
> Atentamente, Regards
> Rodrigo Orenday Serratos
> 
> 
> -----Mensaje original-----
> De: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]En nombre de Marc
> Schneiders
> Enviado el: Jueves, 19 de Diciembre de 2002 03:35 PM
> Para: Steven Heath
> CC: [email-masked]
> Asunto: RE: [ga] NewZealand.com WIPO decision
> 
> 
> On Fri, 20 Dec 2002, at 09:27 [=GMT+1300], Steven Heath wrote:
> 
> > Even more interesting to read the BNA Law summary of the decision:
> >
> > Further, the panel termed the action "baseless" and "misconceived"
> > as it unanimously found that the government engaged in reverse domain name
> > hijacking in bringing the action."
> 
> Congratulations to the NZ government. I don't think any other government
> has been declared to be a domain name hijacker. (The decision occurs very
> rarely and governments/city councils tend to win.) A Book of Records entry
> for the country named after a province in mine!
> 
> The fact that the NZ government did file the complaint, shows that even
> among those elected by the people, attempting theft is not a big deal. Or
> is it that the UDRP, as applied, is succeeding in misleading good
> politicians into believing Everything Trademark Lawyers Dream of When They
> Do Not Have a Nightmare?
> 
> Is there any progress to report about the pending review of the UDRP by
> ICANN, due for end 2000?
> 
> Will the evaluation of new gTLDs also take so long to get going? I hope
> not.
> 
> There are some facts we best ignore, right?
> 
> --
> [01] All ideas are vintage not new or perfect.
> http://logoff.org/
> 
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> 
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> 
> 

- -- 
		Please visit http://www.icannwatch.org
A. Michael Froomkin   |    Professor of Law    |   [email-masked]
U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA
+1 (305) 284-4285  |  +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax)  |  http://www.law.tm
                        -->It's warm here.<--

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 17:40:03 -0600
From: "Rodrigo  Orenday Serrato" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] NewZealand.com WIPO decision

Amazed again?. Professor, we'd been over this one before, remember?.

If you're looking for ICJ precedents and so, I know of none such; I would
argue this on the grounds of international custom and committee. Period.

Atentamente, Regards
Rodrigo Orenday Serratos

- -----Mensaje original-----
De: Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law
[mailto:[email-masked]]
Enviado el: Jueves, 19 de Diciembre de 2002 05:35 PM
Para: Rodrigo Orenday Serrato
CC: 'Marc Schneiders'; 'Steven Heath'; [email-masked]
Asunto: RE: [ga] NewZealand.com WIPO decision

And on what existing principle of public international law do you ground
this amazaing assertion?

On Thu, 19 Dec 2002, Rodrigo  Orenday Serrato wrote:

> Notwithstanding this decision, I still sustain that the naming of
Sovereign
> States is a matter of public international law and public interest, and
that
> no one but a State should be allowed to use neither its official
> denomination nor its common name, absent other characters capable of
making
> it sufficiently distinctive.
>
> Atentamente, Regards
> Rodrigo Orenday Serratos
>
>
> -----Mensaje original-----
> De: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]En nombre de Marc
> Schneiders
> Enviado el: Jueves, 19 de Diciembre de 2002 03:35 PM
> Para: Steven Heath
> CC: [email-masked]
> Asunto: RE: [ga] NewZealand.com WIPO decision
>
>
> On Fri, 20 Dec 2002, at 09:27 [=GMT+1300], Steven Heath wrote:
>
> > Even more interesting to read the BNA Law summary of the decision:
> >
> > Further, the panel termed the action "baseless" and "misconceived"
> > as it unanimously found that the government engaged in reverse domain
name
> > hijacking in bringing the action."
>
> Congratulations to the NZ government. I don't think any other government
> has been declared to be a domain name hijacker. (The decision occurs very
> rarely and governments/city councils tend to win.) A Book of Records entry
> for the country named after a province in mine!
>
> The fact that the NZ government did file the complaint, shows that even
> among those elected by the people, attempting theft is not a big deal. Or
> is it that the UDRP, as applied, is succeeding in misleading good
> politicians into believing Everything Trademark Lawyers Dream of When They
> Do Not Have a Nightmare?
>
> Is there any progress to report about the pending review of the UDRP by
> ICANN, due for end 2000?
>
> Will the evaluation of new gTLDs also take so long to get going? I hope
> not.
>
> There are some facts we best ignore, right?
>
> --
> [01] All ideas are vintage not new or perfect.
> http://logoff.org/
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>
>

- --
		Please visit http://www.icannwatch.org
A. Michael Froomkin   |    Professor of Law    |   [email-masked]
U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA
+1 (305) 284-4285  |  +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax)  |  http://www.law.tm
                        -->It's warm here.<--

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 19:41:49 -0500 (EST)
From: "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] NewZealand.com WIPO decision

What custom?  I'm serious: I see none.  On the contrary, I see many
actions by states that allow people to name their boats, their pets, their
houses, whatever by the names of foreign states.  To the limited extent
traditional sources of international law speak at all on this issue, they
speak against it.  That is why I find it so breathtaking for people to
invent this principle out of whole cloth -- and apparently feel no need to
justify it!

On Thu, 19 Dec 2002, Rodrigo  Orenday Serrato wrote:

> Amazed again?. Professor, we'd been over this one before, remember?.
> 

So long as you (and others) keep trying to float this strange idea, I'll
keep pricking the balloon.

> If you're looking for ICJ precedents and so, I know of none such; I would
> argue this on the grounds of international custom and committee. Period.

Please give an example of relevant state practice dating from more than 10
years ago.

Best regards,
MF
- -- 
		Please visit http://www.icannwatch.org
A. Michael Froomkin   |    Professor of Law    |   [email-masked]
U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA
+1 (305) 284-4285  |  +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax)  |  http://www.law.tm
                        -->It's warm here.<--

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 14:32:07 +1300
From: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [ga] NewZealand.com WIPO decision

On 19 Dec 2002 at 17:40, Rodrigo  Orenday Serrato wrote:

[email-masked]>
Subject:        	RE: [ga] NewZealand.com WIPO decision
Date sent:      	Thu, 19 Dec 2002 17:40:03 -0600

> Amazed again?. Professor, we'd been over this one before, remember?.
> 
Have to say I am with Professor Froomkin on this one.
I am not aware of any principle which operates to give states the power of 
preventing use (or even misuse) of their country name or confusing 
variants.

If this were true, my law school frriend coudn't have opened, as he 
succesfully did, a restaurant in Wellington known as the Mexican 
Cantina...add to that other Wellington shops like Paris, Texas (no "other 
characters capable of making  it sufficiently distinctive")
 multiply examples like that around the world, and you see how 
impractical the suggestion would be, if it were true.

Regards
Peter Dengate Thrush

> If you're looking for ICJ precedents and so, I know of none such; I
> would argue this on the grounds of international custom and committee.
> Period.
> 
> Atentamente, Regards
> Rodrigo Orenday Serratos
> 
>> 
> And on what existing principle of public international law do you
> ground this amazaing assertion?
> 
> On Thu, 19 Dec 2002, Rodrigo  Orenday Serrato wrote:
> 
> > Notwithstanding this decision, I still sustain that the naming of
> Sovereign
> > States is a matter of public international law and public interest,
> > and
> that
> > no one but a State should be allowed to use neither its official
> > denomination nor its common name, absent other characters capable of
> making
> > it sufficiently distinctive.
> >
> > Atentamente, Regards
> > Rodrigo Orenday Serratos
> >
> >
> > -----Mensaje original-----
> > De: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]En nombre de Marc
> > Schneiders Enviado el: Jueves, 19 de Diciembre de 2002 03:35 PM
> > Para: Steven Heath CC: [email-masked] Asunto: RE: [ga] NewZealand.com
> > WIPO decision
> >
> >
> > On Fri, 20 Dec 2002, at 09:27 [=GMT+1300], Steven Heath wrote:
> >
> > > Even more interesting to read the BNA Law summary of the decision:
> > >
> > > Further, the panel termed the action "baseless" and "misconceived"
> > > as it unanimously found that the government engaged in reverse
> > > domain
> name
> > > hijacking in bringing the action."
> >
> > Congratulations to the NZ government. I don't think any other
> > government has been declared to be a domain name hijacker. (The
> > decision occurs very rarely and governments/city councils tend to
> > win.) A Book of Records entry for the country named after a province
> > in mine!
> >
> > The fact that the NZ government did file the complaint, shows that
> > even among those elected by the people, attempting theft is not a
> > big deal. Or is it that the UDRP, as applied, is succeeding in
> > misleading good politicians into believing Everything Trademark
> > Lawyers Dream of When They Do Not Have a Nightmare?
> >
> > Is there any progress to report about the pending review of the UDRP
> > by ICANN, due for end 2000?
> >
> > Will the evaluation of new gTLDs also take so long to get going? I
> > hope not.
> >
> > There are some facts we best ignore, right?
> >
> > --
> > [01] All ideas are vintage not new or perfect.
> > http://logoff.org/
> >
> > --
> > This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> > Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> > ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> > Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> >
> > --
> > This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> > Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> > ("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
> > Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> >
> >
> 
> --
>   Please visit http://www.icannwatch.org
> A. Michael Froomkin   |    Professor of Law    |   [email-masked] U.
> Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA +1
> (305) 284-4285  |  +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax)  |  http://www.law.tm
>                         -->It's warm here.<--
> 
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> 

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 19:43:42 -0600
From: "Rodrigo  Orenday Serrato" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] NewZealand.com WIPO decision

Alright, then. You speak of:

1) a place in Wellington called "The Mexican Cantina". Nothing wrong with
calling something "Mexican", if it is (or attempts to be or pass for)
Mexican, so long as you don't claim it has any percentage of Mexican content
in it, or that is was made in Mexico if it wasn't. That's exactly what the
word's meant for, it an adjective indicating nationality or origin.

2) anotheroner called "Texas". Big deal; political subdivisions of a
federated State, such as the USA, are not subjects of Public International
Law, remember?.

Plus you say (quote) "I am not aware of any principle which operates to give
states the power of preventing use (or even misuse) of their country name or
confusing
variants." (unquote).

Well then, what about foreign trade laws that enforce national content or
country of origin requisites?. If someone puts "made in Mexico" on something
that wasn't made in Mexico (and wouldn't that be missuse of the name
"Mexico"?), that person might be in for trouble, don't you think?.

Atentamente, Regards
Rodrigo Orenday Serratos

- -----Mensaje original-----
De: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
Enviado el: Jueves, 19 de Diciembre de 2002 07:32 PM
Para: 'Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law'; 'Rodrigo Orenday
Serrato'
CC: [email-masked]
Asunto: RE: [ga] NewZealand.com WIPO decision

On 19 Dec 2002 at 17:40, Rodrigo  Orenday Serrato wrote:

[email-masked]>
Subject:        	RE: [ga] NewZealand.com WIPO decision
Date sent:      	Thu, 19 Dec 2002 17:40:03 -0600

> Amazed again?. Professor, we'd been over this one before, remember?.
>
Have to say I am with Professor Froomkin on this one.
I am not aware of any principle which operates to give states the power of
preventing use (or even misuse) of their country name or confusing
variants.

If this were true, my law school frriend coudn't have opened, as he
succesfully did, a restaurant in Wellington known as the Mexican
Cantina...add to that other Wellington shops like Paris, Texas (no "other
characters capable of making  it sufficiently distinctive")
 multiply examples like that around the world, and you see how
impractical the suggestion would be, if it were true.

Regards
Peter Dengate Thrush

> If you're looking for ICJ precedents and so, I know of none such; I
> would argue this on the grounds of international custom and committee.
> Period.
>
> Atentamente, Regards
> Rodrigo Orenday Serratos
>
>>
> And on what existing principle of public international law do you
> ground this amazaing assertion?
>
> On Thu, 19 Dec 2002, Rodrigo  Orenday Serrato wrote:
>
> > Notwithstanding this decision, I still sustain that the naming of
> Sovereign
> > States is a matter of public international law and public interest,
> > and
> that
> > no one but a State should be allowed to use neither its official
> > denomination nor its common name, absent other characters capable of
> making
> > it sufficiently distinctive.
> >
> > Atentamente, Regards
> > Rodrigo Orenday Serratos
> >
> >
> > -----Mensaje original-----
> > De: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]En nombre de Marc
> > Schneiders Enviado el: Jueves, 19 de Diciembre de 2002 03:35 PM
> > Para: Steven Heath CC: [email-masked] Asunto: RE: [ga] NewZealand.com
> > WIPO decision
> >
> >
> > On Fri, 20 Dec 2002, at 09:27 [=GMT+1300], Steven Heath wrote:
> >
> > > Even more interesting to read the BNA Law summary of the decision:
> > >
> > > Further, the panel termed the action "baseless" and "misconceived"
> > > as it unanimously found that the government engaged in reverse
> > > domain
> name
> > > hijacking in bringing the action."
> >
> > Congratulations to the NZ government. I don't think any other
> > government has been declared to be a domain name hijacker. (The
> > decision occurs very rarely and governments/city councils tend to
> > win.) A Book of Records entry for the country named after a province
> > in mine!
> >
> > The fact that the NZ government did file the complaint, shows that
> > even among those elected by the people, attempting theft is not a
> > big deal. Or is it that the UDRP, as applied, is succeeding in
> > misleading good politicians into believing Everything Trademark
> > Lawyers Dream of When They Do Not Have a Nightmare?
> >
> > Is there any progress to report about the pending review of the UDRP
> > by ICANN, due for end 2000?
> >
> > Will the evaluation of new gTLDs also take so long to get going? I
> > hope not.
> >
> > There are some facts we best ignore, right?
> >
> > --
> > [01] All ideas are vintage not new or perfect.
> > http://logoff.org/
> >
> > --
> > This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> > Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> > ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> > Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> >
> > --
> > This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> > Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> > ("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
> > Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> >
> >
>
> --
>   Please visit http://www.icannwatch.org
> A. Michael Froomkin   |    Professor of Law    |   [email-masked] U.
> Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA +1
> (305) 284-4285  |  +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax)  |  http://www.law.tm
>                         -->It's warm here.<--
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 03:12:28 +0100 (CET)
From: Marc Schneiders <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] NewZealand.com WIPO decision

On Thu, 19 Dec 2002, at 16:30 [=GMT-0600], Rodrigo  Orenday Serrato wrote:

> Notwithstanding this decision, I still sustain that the naming of Sovereign
> States is a matter of public international law and public interest, and that
> no one but a State should be allowed to use neither its official
> denomination nor its common name, absent other characters capable of making
> it sufficiently distinctive.

The People of New Zealand do not need newzealand.com, they have .nz.

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 03:23:53 +0100 (CET)
From: Marc Schneiders <[email-masked]>
Subject: NewzealandSHEEP.com (RE: [ga] NewZealand.com WIPO decision)

On Thu, 19 Dec 2002, at 19:43 [=GMT-0600], Rodrigo  Orenday Serrato wrote:

> Well then, what about foreign trade laws that enforce national content or
> country of origin requisites?. If someone puts "made in Mexico" on something
> that wasn't made in Mexico (and wouldn't that be missuse of the name
> "Mexico"?), that person might be in for trouble, don't you think?.

"Made in Mexico" is something protected by laws all over the world. Where
are the laws that protect the names of countries? Best examples would be
those that protect the names of other countries in a country, not (merely)
its own country name.

You may have a case for newzealandsheep.com being used to sell sheep that
where born and bred in Australia under the UDRP. Not for newzealand.com.
There are shops that sell oriental carpets called Istanbul. Not all their
carpets originate from there, and they are not breaking any law (nor
confusing any customer) unless they claim that they sell only goods from
Istanbul.

- -- [06] This email is really a confirmation.
http://logoff.org/

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 20:24:34 -0600
From: "Rodrigo  Orenday Serrato" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] NewZealand.com WIPO decision

Comparison not valid: .NZ is a ccTLD; NEWZELAND.COM is a domain name, not a
domain altogether.

But thanks for sharing.

Atentamente, Regards
Rodrigo Orenday Serratos

- -----Mensaje original-----
De: Marc Schneiders [mailto:[email-masked]]
Enviado el: Jueves, 19 de Diciembre de 2002 08:12 PM
Para: Rodrigo Orenday Serrato
CC: 'Steven Heath'; [email-masked]
Asunto: RE: [ga] NewZealand.com WIPO decision

On Thu, 19 Dec 2002, at 16:30 [=GMT-0600], Rodrigo  Orenday Serrato wrote:

> Notwithstanding this decision, I still sustain that the naming of
Sovereign
> States is a matter of public international law and public interest, and
that
> no one but a State should be allowed to use neither its official
> denomination nor its common name, absent other characters capable of
making
> it sufficiently distinctive.

The People of New Zealand do not need newzealand.com, they have .nz.

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 21:54:54 -0500 (EST)
From: "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] NewZealand.com WIPO decision

Surely there is a difference anyone can see between (a) fraud ("made in
Mexico" when it is not true) (b) just about every other use.  If I create
a home network and call my computer "Betsy" I'm not claiming it's alive.  
If I call it "Mexico" I'm not making any claim about it either.  If my
university has a server and calls it Mexico that's not a claim about it's
origins or locations.  I live on Urbino Ave. in a community full of
Italian street names.  No one thinks this suggests I live in Italy.

Domain names are labels, like network names, city names, street names.
They are arbitrary; hence there is no semantic connotation deriving from
the label.  (There might be from *use*, but not from the label; that's
another way in which your fradu example goes wrong.)

Incidentally, please make an attempt to be more precise. If I am the
registrant of StateName.com, my legal position is identical to that of the
restaurant.  I'm not a subject of public international law; I'm a person.
Ditto for the registrar and registry.  Public international law reaches my
conduct if and only if (A) my conduct is a crime against humanity or other
fundamental international law (e.g. piracy on the high seas, war crimes)
- -- clearly not applicable here; or (B) my state is (or feels) compelled by
some principle of international law to punish my conduct [pass over
whether the principle is self-executing or not, and assume the state is
very punctilious in meeting its international obligations.]  Now, if you
want to tell me that the US, the UK, or Mexico has *an obligation* under
international law to sanction my conduct in registering StateName.com, it
is incumbent on you to explain where this obligation comes from.

We are still waiting for someone, anyone, to even begin to outline what
this argument would look like.

On Thu, 19 Dec 2002, Rodrigo  Orenday Serrato wrote:

> Alright, then. You speak of:
> 
> 1) a place in Wellington called "The Mexican Cantina". Nothing wrong with
> calling something "Mexican", if it is (or attempts to be or pass for)
> Mexican, so long as you don't claim it has any percentage of Mexican content
> in it, or that is was made in Mexico if it wasn't. That's exactly what the
> word's meant for, it an adjective indicating nationality or origin.
> 
> 2) anotheroner called "Texas". Big deal; political subdivisions of a
> federated State, such as the USA, are not subjects of Public International
> Law, remember?.
>

The point you ignore is this is also true of individuals, including domain
name registrants. Like a political subdivision they are not subjects of
international law.  Thus, both the person and the subdivision stand in THE
SAME RELATION to the state as regards the transmission mechanism for their
obligations, and the means by which compliance might be demanded of them.
Having conceded that the subdivision has no duty to respect the supposed
sanctity of a foreign state name, you also ipso facto conceed the same as
to the individual.
 
> Plus you say (quote) "I am not aware of any principle which operates to give
> states the power of preventing use (or even misuse) of their country name or
> confusing
> variants." (unquote).
>

> Well then, what about foreign trade laws that enforce national content or
> country of origin requisites?. If someone puts "made in Mexico" on something
> that wasn't made in Mexico (and wouldn't that be missuse of the name
> "Mexico"?), that person might be in for trouble, don't you think?.
> 
> Atentamente, Regards
> Rodrigo Orenday Serratos
> 
> -----Mensaje original-----
> De: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Enviado el: Jueves, 19 de Diciembre de 2002 07:32 PM
> Para: 'Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law'; 'Rodrigo Orenday
> Serrato'
> CC: [email-masked]
> Asunto: RE: [ga] NewZealand.com WIPO decision
> 
> 
> On 19 Dec 2002 at 17:40, Rodrigo  Orenday Serrato wrote:
> 
> [email-masked]>
> Subject:        	RE: [ga] NewZealand.com WIPO decision
> Date sent:      	Thu, 19 Dec 2002 17:40:03 -0600
> 
> > Amazed again?. Professor, we'd been over this one before, remember?.
> >
> Have to say I am with Professor Froomkin on this one.
> I am not aware of any principle which operates to give states the power of
> preventing use (or even misuse) of their country name or confusing
> variants.
> 
> If this were true, my law school frriend coudn't have opened, as he
> succesfully did, a restaurant in Wellington known as the Mexican
> Cantina...add to that other Wellington shops like Paris, Texas (no "other
> characters capable of making  it sufficiently distinctive")
>  multiply examples like that around the world, and you see how
> impractical the suggestion would be, if it were true.
> 
> Regards
> Peter Dengate Thrush
> 
> > If you're looking for ICJ precedents and so, I know of none such; I
> > would argue this on the grounds of international custom and committee.
> > Period.
> >
> > Atentamente, Regards
> > Rodrigo Orenday Serratos
> >
> >>
> > And on what existing principle of public international law do you
> > ground this amazaing assertion?
> >
> > On Thu, 19 Dec 2002, Rodrigo  Orenday Serrato wrote:
> >
> > > Notwithstanding this decision, I still sustain that the naming of
> > Sovereign
> > > States is a matter of public international law and public interest,
> > > and
> > that
> > > no one but a State should be allowed to use neither its official
> > > denomination nor its common name, absent other characters capable of
> > making
> > > it sufficiently distinctive.
> > >
> > > Atentamente, Regards
> > > Rodrigo Orenday Serratos
> > >
> > >
> > > -----Mensaje original-----
> > > De: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]En nombre de Marc
> > > Schneiders Enviado el: Jueves, 19 de Diciembre de 2002 03:35 PM
> > > Para: Steven Heath CC: [email-masked] Asunto: RE: [ga] NewZealand.com
> > > WIPO decision
> > >
> > >
> > > On Fri, 20 Dec 2002, at 09:27 [=GMT+1300], Steven Heath wrote:
> > >
> > > > Even more interesting to read the BNA Law summary of the decision:
> > > >
> > > > Further, the panel termed the action "baseless" and "misconceived"
> > > > as it unanimously found that the government engaged in reverse
> > > > domain
> > name
> > > > hijacking in bringing the action."
> > >
> > > Congratulations to the NZ government. I don't think any other
> > > government has been declared to be a domain name hijacker. (The
> > > decision occurs very rarely and governments/city councils tend to
> > > win.) A Book of Records entry for the country named after a province
> > > in mine!
> > >
> > > The fact that the NZ government did file the complaint, shows that
> > > even among those elected by the people, attempting theft is not a
> > > big deal. Or is it that the UDRP, as applied, is succeeding in
> > > misleading good politicians into believing Everything Trademark
> > > Lawyers Dream of When They Do Not Have a Nightmare?
> > >
> > > Is there any progress to report about the pending review of the UDRP
> > > by ICANN, due for end 2000?
> > >
> > > Will the evaluation of new gTLDs also take so long to get going? I
> > > hope not.
> > >
> > > There are some facts we best ignore, right?
> > >
> > > --
> > > [01] All ideas are vintage not new or perfect.
> > > http://logoff.org/
> > >
> > > --
> > > This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> > > Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> > > ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> > > Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> > >
> > > --
> > > This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> > > Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> > > ("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
> > > Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> > >
> > >
> >
> > --
> >   Please visit http://www.icannwatch.org
> > A. Michael Froomkin   |    Professor of Law    |   [email-masked] U.
> > Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA +1
> > (305) 284-4285  |  +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax)  |  http://www.law.tm
> >                         -->It's warm here.<--
> >
> > --
> > This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> > Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> > ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> > Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> >
> 
> 

- -- 
		Please visit http://www.icannwatch.org
A. Michael Froomkin   |    Professor of Law    |   [email-masked]
U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA
+1 (305) 284-4285  |  +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax)  |  http://www.law.tm
                        -->It's warm here.<--

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #1533
*************************