Mikki Barry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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.
I think you misunderstood the point of my post. I am not arguing that
"trademark interests" ought to have protection. I was merely
speculating that they might feel existing law does not offer them
enough protection.
I am not a "trademark interest." I think Kerry should complain to the
"trademark interests" if he feels that they are abusing the Internet.
> Irrelevant to ICANN's mandate. ICANN's own web page ...
> does not say "creates policy for domain name usage" or "corporation
> formed to make decisions on who gets more protection, commerce or
> individuals."
Again, you misunderstood my post. I was only pointing out to Kerry
that ICANN is not the instigator of commerce in domain names. That
happened long before ICANN showed up.
> As long as people look at the projected limitations on domain name
> usage and registration as "commerce vs. cybersquatters" you miss the
> big picture.
Right, but this needs to be said to those people, NOT ME! I just use
domain names to get access to Internet resources. I don't care what
they're called -- if IBM was registered as mikki.barry I would still
use it and not be confused.
--gregbo
