Is there a duty to protect expiration dates from being published?

["Curtis Neeley Jr." <Curtis@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I am considering adding ICANN to my next lawsuit for 'cybersquatting' or an
intentional trademark violation.  I plan to take a separate action against
Network Solutions who was the registrar who initially violated my TM.  The
Curtis Neeley Foundation will have in its bylaws to continually seek that
domain registry expiration dates be made private.  Back-ordering a domain is
prima facia evidence of a planned TM violation.  What is ICANNs stance in
regards to a domain expiring due to a owner's incapacity?  This is the
amendment or effect the Curtis Neeley Foundation  will push for:

No demonstrative intent to use a domain in commerce outside of third-party
ad-serving within X weeks creates a liability for infringement and
liability for a fine for the registry of a desired domain that a bona fide
business owner now desires to use in commerce for a good or a service or as
a vehicle for free speech. As of XX/XX/XXXX a use besides third-party ad
serving will be required.  A domain not used in commerce outside third-party
ad serving will cause a liability for a TM violation regardless of the
registration dates for the relevant TM.  Publishing the expiration date of
registry  is evidence of a conspiracy to violate a TM if the owner of domain
can show it was consistently  used in commerce.

A use in commerce outside of serving third-party ads will be required by law
when we are done.  hat is ICANN's stance in regards to a domain expiring due
to a owner's incapacity?  Domain expiration dates should not be publicly
accessible and pubic disclosure be a registrar is evidence of a conspiracy
to violate a TM.

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

I am not a lawyer. I am a photographic artist.
I am facing NameMedia in Federal Court Pro Se and was approved to proceed in
forma pauperis.
I was approved as a pauper and this will support the next related filing.
NameMedia once cybersquatted Cargills.com  Cargill.com is the singular TM.
This use of the plural or possessive 'S' was not enough to trouble
NameMedia.
The fact that NameMedia was running ads that could be competitors ads was
the reason they lost before a tribunal. I sued NameMedia for cybersquatting
and intentionally inflicting emotional distress after their attorney, Erik
Zilinek, considered my request and rejected it as insufficient. I can
demonstrate an attempt to retrieve the TM. I believe my case will end
righted in District Court.
The ACPA's intent was to prevent people from making outrageous profits by
registering domains and "warehousing" them and my lawsuit will end all
businesses like NameMedia's in domain name speculation.  That was the real
intent of the ACPA anyway.

This use of the plural or possessive 'S' was not enough to trouble
NameMedia.
The possessive S and NameMedia? Hmm
Look at NameMedias.com now.  It is a non-commercial free speech protest
site.
Erik Zilinek is their attorney and was looking at the massive closed thread
about my lawsuit at  NamePros earlier today. I saw ezilinek there at 4:31
CST. I am not settling for less than several million.  I have asked for 10
million. I am also seeking to have the registrar who sold it originally
added although their unintentional act may resolve better separately.   I am
not sure that ICANN is liable at all.

Public disclosure of expiration dates is evidence of a conspiracy to commit
cyberstalking.  It is how businesses like NameMedia exists now.
A badly needed amendment will soon require a good or a service to be
provided outside of the service of serving potentially relevant ads to allow
a domain to be registered. I will seek that no domain name registry
expiration dates be published in the future. An actual first amendment use
will also be allowed, but a proof of consistent editorial use by a person
will be the duty of the registrant.
I will also ask that Google be required to blacklist ad sites like NameMedia
makes. If it requires adding Google as a co-conspirator, I will do it. The
issue might need to be independent of trademarks but might also work as an
ACPA amendment?

An intent to use a domain in commerce or free-speech must be demonstrated
prior to registry .A consistent demostative intent to use a domain in
commerce or for free-speech must be demonstrated prior to registry. No
demonstrative intent to use a domain in commerce outside of third-party
ad-serving within X weeks creates a liability for infringement or liability
for a fine for the prior registry of a desired domain that a commercial
business owner now desires to use in commerce for a good or a service.

Look at NameMedias.com now.  It is a non-commercial free speech protest
site. NameMedia Inc. felt confident enough to challenge Cargill, Inc. for
Cargills.com before a UDRP. I once met with Disney to look into providing an
online reservation service through SleepSpot.com it was going to generate
millions in fees each year.I was going to work in concert with Disney.
It is just a third-party advertisement cybersquat site now. SleepSpot.com  I
have several witnesses who will testify that I was certain SleepSpot.com
would make me a millionaire from 2000. That would be about nine million by
now.  I would still have preferred to make it outside of court.



Curtis J Neeley Jr.