In summary:
There are differences in trade mark law in different countries (and lawyers
also have different opinions on points of law).
Milton Mueller's study may (or may not) have been presented fairly -
depending on your viewpoint. It did not pick up every example of
"speculation" in the world (it missed a number of UK examples), but it
could not reasonably have been expected to do otherwise, nor could it do
more than present what has occurred, and this is a fast changing arena.
Large companies such as MTV (and indeed many small companies) are becoming
much more aware of the potential of the internet, and want to participate.
There is endless scope for argument as to whether businesses which trade
under particular names are mean to individuals, or indeed vice versa. It
is broadly irrelevant, as ICANN is not going to change either human nature,
nor the laws of any country (and contrary to a common assumption on this
list, US law is not the only relevant law).
What is relevant is how to provide a structure for provision of domain
names that accomodates as far as reasonably possible the reasonable
interests of all concerned, and which, of course, is technically feasible.
The structure for provision of domain names at this point limits the number
of individuals (legal or human) who can use a particular name. This leads
to "speculation" or "piracy", to bullying by some businesses, and
disappointment to other businesses and individuals.
The procedure of NSI and other registries is mechanistic as regards
recognition of the interests of trade mark owners, and this leads to
inequities.
Court actions are very expensive as a method of dispute resolution. There
will be jurisdiction problems when individuals in different countries have
interests in the same name. However, many have concerns about mandatory
arbitration.
I joined this list hoping to see some answers to these problems, as my
understanding was that that was what ICANN was supposed to be doing. I
haven't seen much yet. As my contribution to keeping on point I have
resolved not to enter into any further irrelevant disputes on points of
law.
