http://www.thedomains.com/2008/11/05/cadna-adds-new-members/

U.S. law currently doesn’t classify cybersquatting as a criminal act, although it seems that’s what you want CADNA to succeed in doing. Personally I wouldn’t necessarily have a problem with that if only CADNA would recognize there are exceptions, as decided by various legal and administrative decisions.

Oh, and impotent like how exactly?

http://www.mckinseyquarterly.com/Strategy/Innovation/Googles_view_on_the_future_of_business_An_interview_with_CEO_Eric_Schmidt_2229

If you set up a charitable site and take money and put it in your pocket you go to jail.

Nothing to do with trademark law.

You go to the store and put a gun to the clerks head and ask for money, you go to jail.

Now if your in business and someone uses your service and doesn’t pay you, all you can do it sue the guy. You can’t put the guy in jail for owing you money.

There are some issues which are civil in nature.

They are disputes between parties not criminal conduct.

Trademarks are one of those issues.

I repectfully disagree with your assessment.

The response to the CADNA press relase was to address one issue, that statement that CADNA said cybersqautting is criminal.

This is far from the first time they have said this.

Sadly in America after the public hears something time and time again they believe it as being true.

I insisted that the ICA send out a statement calling CADNA out, clarifying that cybersquatting is not criminal, it is civil and should stay that way.

You cannot in making that statement without also clearly stating that you are against cybersquatting which is in the ICA charter.

That does not take away from the fact that the statement of CADNA that cybersquatting=criminal conduct is false.

I think the statement was good and needed.

Let’s not send people to jail for registering a domain

“ICA jumped on this and made our position clear” YEP

“Internet Commerce Association vigorously opposes cybersquatting. However, it is important to note that cybersquatting is a civil matter, not a criminal one” = Impotent

“The Internet Commerce Association has adopted a Code of Conduct that prohibits intentional trademark infringement” = Impotent

“Trademark owners are already provided with two highly effective methods for dealing with the trademark abuse known as cybersquatting”
MHB this is a contradiction with your own personal views ref post : So the first letter gets no response as does the second, so the trademark holder than has to file a UDRP and get a default judgment at a costs of thousands of dollars per domain.Although very expensive, its cheaper than paying their attorney to send out letters and file suits and UDRP for hundreds or thousands of domains. Therefore most find they HAVE to register every valuable trademark in every extension, although they have no use or need for them.

“Internet Commerce Association vigorously opposes cybersquatting. However, it is important to note that cybersquatting is a civil matter, not a criminal one” = Vigorously ?? Impotent