This is what I think of them:JDRP, have you the guts for public discussion - or
are you cowards?
My beliefs are based on reasoned logic - and have not been refuted.
My
findings are objective - and can be proven to be so.
Indeed, honest Lawyers have
verified the solution so that all trademarks may use their mark without 'consumer
confusion', 'trademark conflict' and 'passing off'.
Just like corruptness and conspiracies
at Enron - I see situation to be just like there - they all gain - the Lawyers, ICANN,
WIPO and US DOC.
I believe the corruption runs deep through ICANN right to the
United States Department of Commerce.
Checkout JDRP.com - and their people involvement
with ICANN.
A quote from a Karl Auerbach:
Jones, Day, Reavis & Pogue is ICANN's
law firm, and has been so since the day of ICANN's birth. Indeed Jones-Day
actually performed the incorporation ceremony in its Los Angeles offices.
Jones,
Day, in the person of its principle man-on-the-ICANN-scene, Joe Sims, was present
for at least half a year before ICANN was born, working in the shadows, responding
to unknown interests and possibly making unknown deals. About all we know about
that period is that those who were not insiders to Joe Sims process were ignored
and that those who objected were treated with condescension and abuse.
Over the
life of ICANN, Jones, Day has been the the dominant creditor of ICANN.
Even now
Jones, Day continues to receive a lion's share of every dollar that flows into ICANN.
And
one of Jones, Day's partners, Louis Touton, left the firm to become ICANN's Vice-President,
Secretary, and General Counsel.
There is in my mind a question about the appearance
of propriety.
http://www.cavebear.com/icann-board/platform.htm
***End quote.
In
a good two month period, October and November 2000, they got $465,553.67 from ICANN.
http://www.icann.org/minutes/prelim-report-06jan01.htm
As
it one of the largest intellectual property practice groups in a general-practice
law firm - with more than 85 intellectual property lawyers, I would imagine Jones,
Day, Reavis & Pogue make a lot of money on trademarks problems on the Internet.
http://www1.jonesday.com/practices/area.asp?AreaID=450
They
would lose a lot of money, if there was less trademark problems on the Internet -
wouldn't they?
Draw your own conclusions - but it is my opinion they do not want
the solution to 'consumer confusion', 'trademark conflict' and 'passing off' problems
on the Internet.
There is in my mind certainly no question about the appearance
of corruption.