Yes, isn't it interesting that during the White Paper proceeding, those of us
who urged the USG to add a principle regarding freedom of expression to the
other "principles" that the ICANN would need to follow were told that this was
not necessary because existing national laws would apply to the Internet as
before. Apparently this logic did not apply to trademark law, which already is
being applied and always can be applied. The Clinton administration has been
very two-faced about that, but of course the reason is purely political.
--MM
Mikki Barry wrote:
> >"ICANN is not a governance institution,
> >but a narrowly focused technical body charged with certain policymaking
> >and coordination tasks. This model is premised on the view that if ICANN
> >is invested with a worldwide democratic electorate, it will be treated by
> >realspace governments and others as a legitimately elected government of
> >cyberspace."
>
> If this were the case, two DNSO applications would not have as objectives,
> to settle disputes between trademark holders and domain name holders. This
> is far more governance than what a technical body would do.
>
__________________________________________________
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____________________________________________
