Bruce and all,
Bruce I Yegelwel wrote:
> I wholeheartedly agree with John. Moreover, this panel is grossly
> underrepresented by the average person.
It certainly is and the ICANN is going to do whatever it can to
keep it that way such as thing look now. However that may
change, but it will take some effort to keep DN privacy and
Stakeholder individual representation as the basis to do so.
> Certainly that may sound like a
> compliment. But the idea of limiting an individuals "right" to a domain is
> tantamount to reverse cybersquating by the corporations. Better still,
> cybersquating by the computer elite because these elite currently have very
> little opposition from the uneducated general public.
Yes but they do have opposition form groups like ours and other
organizations like ORSC and the BWG, though that opposition is
seemingly waning lately.
> Don't forget that the
> internet is a form of commerce.
This is only one of the forms or presence's that the Internet represents.
Not all Domain Names owners represent commerce, nor should they.
> A domain name is analogous to the name of
> your store (hardware.com). To limit an individuals right to register and
> use their chosen store name will soon be against public interest, if not
> already.
Good and interesting point that has been espoused many times before, and
begs for further development.
> The general public is grossly uneducated about computers, the
> internet, websites, and domains. The public's complacency with y2k
> emphasizes this lack of understanding and knowledge. Even the leaders of
> large corporations do not have a true appreciation for this new environment.
> But, the general public learns quickly. And when they do, some members of
> this panel will have reasons for concern because their views will be in
> direct opposition to the rights of the general public.
Yes, but the current ICANN is hoping by that point that their policies will
be in place and a solid power base will than be established. Once that
is done, the masses or individual Domain Name holders of the future
will face a "March to our methods or be ostracized or worse" attitude that
will be difficult for most people to deal with. And many will just capitulate
and follow blindly or not choose to participate except as a user.
> More importantly,
> the "world public" will be a strong force to contend with considering the
> future of many struggling economies will rely upon development of the
> internet for future growth. I would not want to be the person who tells the
> general public that they do not have a "right" a domain not currently
> registered. Steamrollers move slowly but they rarely ever stop.
Well I hope you are correct...
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: John D. Goodspeed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Thursday, March 04, 1999 3:59 PM
> Subject: A Citizen's Right to Domain Name Privacy
>
> >Kent,
> >
> >I am concerned, perhaps I have misunderstood your seemingly harsh
> >statements.
> >
> >Well, let me ponder your comment for a moment, you state:
> >
> >>
> >>What is your convincing argument that ordinary people that don't
> >>have any equipment connected to the net actually need a domain name?
> >>Why is it that you assume that having a domain name is a right?
> >>
> >
> >You comment as if you were a card carrying member of the WIPO / ICANN /
> >NewCo / DNSO secret police? :)
> >
> >Yes, I will work hard to see to it that ordinary people without any
> >equipment or knowledge thereof have the right to Internet Names to use
> >anyway they see fit.
> >
> >It would be absurd in this age of awesome technological achievement to tell
> >everyone that they must line up under a restrictive handful of vendor
> >specified Internet Names.
> >
> >Are you actually advancing a notion to limit the ordinary person's right to
> >as many personal Internet Domain Names as they would like to have just
> >because they have no router hardware or specialized knowledge thereof?
> >
> >I declare that it must emphatically be the ordinary citizen's right to get
> a
> >personal Internet Name. Having one or more meaningful Internet Names will
> be
> >a necessary fact of life in the next few years.
> >
> >In addition, it will be the ordinary citizen's right to an inexpensive
> >Internet Name that provides complete anonymity as to its actual owner.
> >
> >Privacy shall be king in the brave new world of the Internet.
> >
> >Thank you for your comments,
> >
> >John D. Goodspeed
> >
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Kent Crispin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >Date: Thursday, March 04, 1999 3:28 PM
> >Subject: Re: Privacy of Domain Registration Information
> >
> >
> >>On Thu, Mar 04, 1999 at 02:52:14PM -0500, John D. Goodspeed wrote:
> >>> Karl,
> >>>
> >>> I understand and agree with much of what you have to say. However,
> little
> >of
> >>> what you have stated below has much to do with my original discussion of
> >>> Internet Name anonymity. As I have previously stated, I think it would
> be
> >a
> >>> good idea if ordinary people could register Internet (domain) Names
> >without
> >>> any public record of who they are, no public whois. I stand by that
> >>> statement. What is your convincing argument to the contrary?
> >>
> >>What is your convincing argument that ordinary people that don't
> >>have any equipment connected to the net actually need a domain name?
> >>Why is it that you assume that having a domain name is a right?
> >>
> >>--
> >>Kent Crispin "Do good, and you'll be
> >>[EMAIL PROTECTED] lonesome." -- Mark Twain
> >>
> >
> >
>
>
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
