Karl and all,
Good points. ANd of course they have been stated over and over again
by many. It is truly astounding how the ICANN along with the
DNSO meeting could have possibly come up with the decisions
that they did. I seems as though that the comments that the ICANN
itself has requested were either ignored, al la the old IANA, or
not considered significant, also astounding.
Karl Auerbach wrote:
> > Precisely the same thing could be said about *any* measure designed
> > to protect a minority -- a minority is a special interest, by
> > definition.
>
> For any "constituency" there is an opposite.
>
> For the ying of the constituency of trademark owners there is the yang of
> the constituency of those who desire to use names in those areas in which
> trademarks do not run, i.e. the legitimate areas not covered by a mark.
>
> For the ying of the constituency of registries offering name registration
> services there is the yang of the constituency of those who desire to
> register names.
>
> For the ying of the constituency of businesses there is the yang of those
> who chose to operate on the net in a non-enterprise, non-profit making
> manner (such as schools, churches, etc.)
>
> And yet all those latter constituencies are being ignorred and submerged
> by the various proposals.
>
> As such they are fatally flawed, non-representative, biased, not worthy of
> even the most fleeting consideration that they meet the objectives
> espoused by the White Paper.
>
> --karl--
Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Contact Number: 972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
