Re: On-going Internet Emergency and Domain Names

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

- -- Roland Dobbins <rdobbinscisco.com> wrote:

>On Mar 31, 2007, at 11:36 PM, Fergie wrote:
>
>> Would love to arguments to the contrary.
>
<Are there any similarities between the current system
involving DMCA  
takedown notices/counterclaims and what's being posited?
>

Roland,

I'm not so great with trick questions, but I'm sure you
asked it
for a very goos reason,

Care to expand?

- - ferg


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP Desktop 9.6.0 (Build 214)

wj8DBQFGDvuzq1pz9mNUZTMRAs3OAKDJrxGY8+1ux3t3bftDp5lYqTlXkgCg
m6kX
LZw43cjPyA59PvY2RcF48Gc=
=qYAi
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


--
"Fergie", a.k.a. Paul Ferguson
 Engineering Architecture for the Internet
 fergdawg(at)netzero.net
 ferg's tech blog: http://fergdawg.blogspo
t.com/

On Apr 1, 2007, at 12:24 AM, Fergie wrote:

> Care to expand?

Well, one reads about a) overly broad DMCA claims and b)
overly broad  
DMCA takedowns (oftentimes with no direct causation between
the two),  
and then a counterclaim process which seems to be somewhat
ad hoc in  
nature, often inefficient, and sometimes ineffective.

I'm wondering if there are any lessons, positive or
negative, to be  
drawn from the DMCA experience which may be relevant when
discussing  
the desirability/efficacy/workability/potential for
abuse/possible  
collateral damage/legal liabilities of a domain takedown
regime?

------------------------------------------------------------
-----------
Roland Dobbins <rdobbinscisco.com> //
408.527.6376 voice

         Words that come from a machine have no soul.

                       -- Duong Van Ngo