Mikki Barry a �crit:
>
> >The problem, as I see it, is the following.
> >In the past, the major issue in the domain name system was the allocation of
> >new gTLDs, and it is my own belief that one of the major opponents of this
> >action was the trademark lobby.
>
> Since ICANN is supposed to be dealing with technical issues, and since the
> trademark lobby has brought up no technical issues with the addition of new
> gTLDs, and since they have nothing to do with the technical issues of new
> gTLDs, I do not believe that they should have any type of preferred
> position.
>
> >If this is true, it seems obvious to me thet ICANN will never endorse an
> >application that will not include this constituency. This means that, sooner
> >or later, the interests of the Registrar and Registries, User Groups, ISPs,
> >and whatever else, have to come to a negotiation with the Trademark folks.
> >I personally disagree with a lot of things in the INTA proposal, and rest
> >assured that will do my best to make my voice heard when the final draft
> >will be discussed. My approach is that Trademarks and Commercial interests
> >need not to be separate constituencies (if this means doubling the seats).
> >At the same time, I have to admit that giving to Registrars and Registries
> >together 9 seats (as in our current draft) may seem difficult to swallow by
> >INTA. Hence, the need not for a "political deal" but for a negotiation.
> >Maybe Onno's proposal is worth considering as a basis for a negotiation.
>
> This argument does not follow. I would argue that intellectual property
> protection and interests are beyond the scope of ICANN completely. The
> trademark interests in general, and INTA in particular are of far less
> import than domain name holders (that include MANY INTA members, MANY large
> corporations in e-commerce, and MANY individuals) and THAT group, if any,
> should be the one with representation in the DNSO.
That's right. That's the only coherent tack to take, and it's got to be
argued coherently with the ICANN and the NTIA, and in Washington.
However, there are other reasons for opposing the INTA's initiative. Their
proposal, taking advantage of the recent changes to the ICANN bylaws that
put the SOs corporately outside ICANN, is a step, a very big step, to
turning the DNSO, and with it the Internet, into a corporate state run by an
executive accountable only to itself. It's clear for all to see in their
bylaws proposal. So, they have to be fought not only because they'll oppose
new gTLDs, exclude users from the DNSO, and eventually drive small ISPs out
of business, but because they intend to take control of the Internet for big
business.
__________________________________________________
To receive the digest version instead, send a
blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To SUBSCRIBE forward this message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNSUBSCRIBE, forward this message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Problems/suggestions regarding this list? Email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
___END____________________________________________
