In general your post is on point, but I can't agree with this:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> 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).
I disagree (about the laws, of course!). My perception of the situation is
this: WIPO is trying to create an entirely new system of administrative law to
regulate domain names on behalf of trademark owners. You are correct that
neither WIPO nor ICANN have the power to change the laws of 200+ nations. ICANN
does, however, have bottleneck control of the assignment of domain names. If
this bottleneck monopoly power, held by a private organization, is wedded to
the WIPO proposals via a compulsory "contract" that holds across the
ICANN/registry/regsitrar service chain, then WIPO's non-legal, completely new,
uniform, and relentlessly biased system of administrative "law" can perhaps be
imposed upon the hapless Internet.
> 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 problem is that WIPO is not interested in accommodating the interests of
all concerned. It has a particular constituency: TM holders. It really doesn't
care about anyone else. It also is drooling over the revenue-generating
potential of becoming the mandatory ADR system for ALL intellectual property
issues in cyberspace. ICANN *should* care about the interests of all concerned,
but it is under heavy lobbying pressure from very powerful and well-funded
corporate TM interests. How often do its Board members have to come face to
face with the individual domain name holders who would be the victims of such a
scheme?
