Greg,
> > Just so. However, whatever you or they do with names should
> > not *interfere with Internet operation.
>
> What *I* do with names does not interfere with Internet operation.
>
You said you use domain names to reach desired sites. Catering
slavishly to this *convenience* is exactly what is leading ICANN
away from technical supervision and into the morass of
governance, despite the absence of a countable population, or a
revenue stream, or even much street credibility. The result
promises to be one damned strange kind of convenience, imho.
> > 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.
>
> Excuse me.
> When did I say I wanted WIPO to have their way? I never said anything
> like that.
>
The inability of many on this list to grasp the implications of their
favorite positions is the source of a lot of IFWPs pointless
bickering. I agree you are not one of the more vocal contributors,
but if you have a theory of governance that does not imply a
dispute-resolution mechanism, now is a good time to roll it out.
> I *do* understand some of the concerns the TM interests have. This
> does not mean I agree with the methods they are using to address these
> concerns.
Do you agree that those concerns did not arise until money started changing hands?
The direct consequence is conflict of one sort and another,and the open invitation for
an unelected, unaccountable, nontransparent supranational agency dedicated to
monetarist principles to take over. There are
several ways to avoid such consequences, but they require treating the cause not the
symptoms; that is, to go 'upstream' to the source of the systemic injury.
> Why isn't it possible for you to accept that not everyone is going to
> agree with you on everything? I disagree with other folks here on
> some issues, such as Roeland and Stef [are more TLDs necessary?] This
> does not mean I am being irresponsible. I have a right to my
> opinions.
As do we all. Its a pity, nevertheless, that having opinions is as far
as it goes: I dont expect to see 'running code' or even a coherent
policy overnight, but is it really too much to hope that *some kind
of comprehensible framework could emerge from the collective
power assembled here?
The reaction to such an outrageous suggestion is sure to be the
usual repertory of aspersions: Who am I to 'impose' a framework?
What's in it for me? -- That is, we refuse to believe we can do
anything *but have individual opinions, and we'll have (and express)
them about personal character if there's nothing else handy.
IFWP is addicted to futility, and in the meantime, the thinking *and
the decisions are made elsewhere. I say again, to habitually,
chronically, and deliberately refuse to get *beyond disagreement is,
in a word, irresponsibility.
kerry
