Greg,
> I use [domain names]
> to access resources on the net. Others buy and sell them. I
> guess they have their reasons. If you want this not to be an issue,
> you have to convince the people who buy and sell domain names not to
> do that any more.
...
> The Internet is just like anything else, where people will take an
> opportunity to make a quick buck if given the opportunity. They see
> an unclaimed name that someone else might want sometime later and buy
> it. Get people not to do that any more and it won't be an issue.
Just so. However, whatever you or they do with names should
not *interfere with Internet operation. I suggested a purely
technical stance ICANN could adopt if it wished; what I supposed
would be the obvious implication is that if it actively supports
'meaningful' names (on the grounds of 'convenience,' presumably),
it is *necessarily* moving into 'governance' issues, and it should
therefore prepare to operate as an Internet government. To my mind
(beyond the procedural details such as transparent board
meetings), the foremost function of government is to
unambiguously define who is a constituent and who is not, so that
when 'consensus' or even 'majority' decisions are made we can at
least count noses. Sadly, I dont see that any of the white papers
or drafts or proposals or outlines or bylaws have managed to
address this detail (nor have I managed to bring a Famous Name in
on this issue either...)
Grndl's enunciations would work for all the purposes brought
forward so far for domain names, and precious few of them, I
suspect, would conflict with trademarks. But is an *adequate
solution enough for you? No, you want to have easy.com and
easy.go all the way through -- screw off the hard times, let WIPO
run the confounded world. Not for the likes of us to bear any bloody
burden.
If you want intelligibility in domain names for more than another
year or two (that is, to be a 'sustainable practice'), I think we have
to *show cause* why any outfit in ICANNs position of transnational
status should stick its neck into that muddy water. But that means
accepting that we 'netizens' too are part of the process;
specifically, that IFWP (for instance) is a kind of General
Assembly, willy nilly, and that we might think about practicing a
sense of responsibility for getting the Board lined out on its
*societal (not its technical) duties.
But as long as we can *pretend* that the technical mandate
automatically makes ICANN a government (even if it is
unaccountable, in the way some countries bomb others without
ever declaring war -- or pass retroactive laws without having seen
the text...), we can let it make up policies, and staff positions, as it
goes along; let it hold closed meetings, and maybe get a few
cakes tossed our way when we get too boisterous. That way, we
dont sully our libertarian ideals with things like taxation --
commercial interests can just underwrite the effort, why not? As
long as we can bitch and moan about the injustice of it all, who's
complaining, eh? Why not just agree to disagree, and kick back?
Anyhow, who asked us to be *responsible, just because we see
whats going on? We couldnt possibly be *representative, because
nobody elected us (and a good thing too, politics'd probably corrupt
us).
kerry, passing the stone
