> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Mikki
> Barry
> Sent: Thursday, January 21, 1999 9:35 PM
> To: IFWP Discussion List
> Subject: [ifwp] Re: DNSO Important update: The "Merged" Draft
>
>
> > What 'legislative' forum do you have in mind for this issue?
> >(Judiciaries exist to resolve legislative conflicts, not to create new
> >law.) If I were a member of DNSO, the first item I would put on the
> >agenda would be some proposal to ICANN regarding just this particular
> >issue, precisely because (despite Wendy Selzer's 'membership model'**)
> >the structures being put in place *will serve as a government of
> >cyberspace, and policies of ICANN *will come to have the force of law by
> >default.
>
> The forums located in the countries where the registry is located. This
> has worked just fine for now.
Many countries have no commercial law to speak of, and of those that do, IP
complaints are regularly flouted with a wink from the government. In China
and other places, it's an entire industry. These "forums" have not just not
worked fine, they haven't worked at all.
For trademark owners whose names have been pirated, often for resale to the
owners, there is nothing to do but (a) try to get the registry to do
something, which is often unavailing, or (b) try to buy it back.
This *is* a problem. It's a common problem, I can attest to that from the
personal experience of having negotiated with registries and domain holders
in hundreds of cases. Just because Milton Mueller didn't bother to include
them in his "Syracuse University Study" doesn't mean they don't exist. I
built a million-dollar business based on corporations paying me good money
just to register names for them all over the world because it's cheaper to
do so than pay pirates or go through non-existent legal channels. They
would have been happy to work with their .com domain only except for piracy,
and most of them came to me only after they had been contacted for ransom.
The fact that it's a problem for a group you've compared to slaveowners
doesn't make it less so. In most places, there is no law to deal with it.
You can say, oh, too bad for those rich bastards, but they do have
legitimate interests. If you don't want trademark owners interfering in
every little DNS detail, you have to make provision for the big concern they
do have.
If you don't want trademarks to exist, maybe you should try the appropriate
legal forums to abolish them. Until then, trademarks do exist, their owners
have legitimate concerns. Telling them to go screw themselves is the best
way to make sure that corporate America does its damndest to get involved in
protecting their interests through the DNS.
Antony
> >
> >Conversely, if I were an 'at large' member of ICANN
> >(my application even to the selection committee was not accepted),
> >I would move to address Internet issues from this perspective, as well,
> >but in order to preserve 'netizen rights' in the face of the kind of
> >organizational resources corporate 'representatives' would offer -- and,
> >imo, if this list and others want to be heard by policy makers, it would
> >do well to take this philosophical higher ground before it dissolves
> >entirely.
> > Is there an alternative function for this sort of discussion group? If
> >so, can you advise me how closely this list in particular is fulfilling
> >that purpose?
> >
> >
> >** 1/19/99:
> >"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____________________________________________
>
>
__________________________________________________
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____________________________________________
