First I'd like to go on record that I do not currently wish the ICANN to
become anything (let alone "worse than a governmental entity").
I'm not suggesting 18 months, maybe 18 days -- as you (Mikki) pointed out,
it's a nonosecond world on the Internet, lets just time-compress the "US"
trademark process -- you file for a domain, it is issued for 18 days on a
temp basis, people have 18 days to complain, they get resolved (or not)
and on day 19 you either have a netTM(tm) or don't.
The only difference is I would have some extremely tight guidelines on how
to complain and how they get resolved -- maybe part of the fee you pay for
the domain will go to fund the "arbitration" panel who decides disputes.
I'm operating under the assumption that we are going to see rates increase
before they decrease -- take a couple of $$ times millions of domain names
and I'm sure you can get 2 or 3 "experts" to work on a full-time panel.
Ron
On Wed, 3 Feb 1999, Mikki Barry wrote:
> >Ron Fitzherbert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >>What would be the problem with the following (from a TM/legal standpoint):
> >
> >>I file a request for xyz123.dom -- the request is then "published" (it
> >>could or could not be made active at the same time). People then have x
> >>days to file a "protest" with appropriate requirements included, etc. If
> >>after x days there is no protest or all protests are "resolved" then a
> >>netTM is issued on the FQDN?
> >
> >I'm not sure what you mean by netTM, but the method of filing an
> >application that is available for public review is used for radio and
> >TV licenses here in the US. I think the idea of putting domain name
> >applications up for public review is a good idea.
>
> Great idea for a medium that is more static than the Internet. It could be
> great, just like the USPTO. 18 month service in a nanosecond world.
>
> The Internet would not be as desirable a forum for e-commerce (or anything
> else actually) if is evolution is slowed down to the point of the snail's
> pace of regulatory agencies. Isn't that one of the big reasons we've been
> against governmental intervention from the get go?
>
> Looks like lots of people are wishing for the ICANN to become worse than a
> governmental entity controlling the Internet. Governmental entities (at
> least in the US) can be voted out, their information can be FOIA'd, and its
> policies can be scrutinized. We can't even get ICANN to hold open board
> meetings, or publish full minutes in a timely manner.
>
>
>
---------------- Ronald J. Fitzherbert, President ---------------
PENGUIN.NET(sm)
Arlington, Virginia & Austin, Texas (USA)
------------------- http://www.uspenguin.net/ -------------------
