Re: [IFWP] Re: Cato Institute forum on domain names ...

[Mikki Barry]

greg skinner said:

>Kerry Miller wrote:
>
>> I believe its RFC 1591 that states that registering a domain name
>> confers no legal rights to that name and that any disputes between
>> parties over the rights to use a particular name are to be settled
>> between the contending parties using existing legal methods. Why
>> then should a *technical* administrative body be impelled to step
>> into this picture, unless trademark interests are pushing it in order
>> to 'externalize' their costs?
>
>I don't know. You would have to ask the trademark interests why
>they have pushed for it. Perhaps they felt they needed more
>protection.

So if I feel that tomato growers need more protection, that's ok for ICANN to expand into as well? ICANN's mandate is technical, not policy making. Through this entire fiasco of "open, transparent and accountable" formation, we were told again and again that ICANN would not be conducting Internet governance. Yet giving protection to one group at the expense of another is precisely that.
>
>> Again, ICANN *could add its weight to the obvious way out -- the
>> de-emphasis of DN as an advertising/ 'free speech' device,
>
>The emphasis of domain names as an advertising/free speech device did
>not start with ICANN -- it started with people who decided to register
>names for those purposes. I doubt it will matter if ICANN goes on
>such a crusade. The people who want to use domain names in these ways
>were around long before ICANN showed up, and will most likely be
>around long after ICANN is history.

Irrelevant to ICANN's mandate. ICANN's own web page says: "The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) is the new non-profit corporation that was formed to take over responsibility for the IP address space allocation, protocol parameter assignment, domain name system management, and root server system management functions now performed under U.S. Government contract by IANA and other entities."

Note that says "domain name system management." That does not say "creates policy for domain name usage" or "corporation formed to make decisions on who gets more protection, commerce or individuals."

>> and the enhancement of more accurate and contextually richer modes
>> of navigation than a single 64-character string -- instead of plowing
>> deeper into the mud.
>
>ICANN has nothing to do with this. That's the province of whoever is
>designing such systems. My guess is those will experience the same
>disputes domain names do now, when those systems mature. Like I
>said before, there will always be people around who will try to make
>an easy buck if they see an opportunity to do so and there are people
>who will pay for the service.

As long as people look at the projected limitations on domain name usage and registration as "commerce vs. cybersquatters" you miss the big picture. There are individuals, non profits, church groups, sewing circles, knitting clubs, small businesses and other who "feel they need more protection." The only difference is, they don't have lobbying groups or big bucks or corporate lawyers to push their views at the expense of others. Under US law, you have constitutional protections. Under ICANN there are no such protections.