RE: [soac-mapo] "string only" - clarification

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I thought that Carroll stated that this was not a case of criminal law
but rather civil law and that the use of "incitement" was well enough
defined under civil law?  Did I misunderstand?

Chuck

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx] On
> Behalf Of Konstantinos Komaitis
> Sent: Wednesday, September 08, 2010 4:51 AM
> To: Philip Sheppard; soac-mapo
> Subject: Re: [soac-mapo] "string only" - clarification
> 
> 
> Thanks for this Philip - I will be looking out for such a registration
> :)
> 
> Again though I am not convinced about this. According to criminal law,
> incitement requires, amongst others: action, intent and encouragement
-
> I don't see how we can ensure through a single string - even the one
> that appears to be against me - that all these requirements are met.
> Even Carroll yesterday suggested that for incitement determinations,
> context is something that we cannot possibly overrule. Criminal law's
> incitement was surely not drafted with gTLDs in mind, but at the same
> time let's not stretch the law in an effort to fit novel issues, such
> as gTLD strings. We did that in the trademark arena and look where it
> led us.
> 
> KK
> 
> On 08/09/2010 09:14, "Philip Sheppard" <philip.sheppard@xxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Konstantinos Komaitis wrote:
> "For me, no string is sufficient enough to incite people to do
> anything"
> 
> How about killkonstantinoskomaitis ?
> leading to registrations such as hang.killkonstantinoskomaitis
> 
> Not that I propose spending my USD 185k on this : )
> P
> 
> 
>