Re: On-going Internet Emergency and Domain Names
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 - -- Roland Dobbins <rdobbins@cisco.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+1ux3t3bftDp5lYqTlXkgCgm6kX 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.blogspot.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 <rdobbins@cisco.com> // 408.527.6376 voice Words that come from a machine have no soul. -- Duong Van Ngo
participants (2)
-
Fergie -
Roland Dobbins