On 29 June 1999, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (William X. Walsh) wrote:
>
>Mark,
>
>I think you are confused as to what was the basis for this discussion.
>As a consumer you are a part of a market, you make certain choices.
>These choices include which TLD to register under, which internet
>provider to use, etc.
>
>None of what has been discussed on this thread had any relation to
>privacy policies with regard to unsolicited advertisements.
Sorry. My "I am not a number" speech needed some exercise. :)
However, I was trying to make a point with all of that. I just
didn't do a very good job of it. The point is this: As a DN holder,
yes, I am part of a market. However, the way the DNC is handling
things, only the marketers have a say in how things are to be done
(qua voting members. Yes, I can join a working group, I know). In
this instance, "they" are getting exactly what already exists in other
mediums: A passive consumer base. The businesses are represented, the
TM holders are represented (I still don't see the distinction between
those two), the registries are represented...but the market, by and
large, isn't represented, unless you include the businesses as part of
that market. If you do so, then you've got unbalanced representation,
because the other half of the equation -- namely, those who can least
afford litigation, forced arbitration, what-have-you; i.e., the
individual DN holders and (some would argue, I would have to agree)
the small "mom and pop" businesses -- isn't present.
In this way, whether via happy circumstance or actual effort, those
most likely to benefit from something like WIPO or the
anti-cybersquatting bill are currently sitting in a very good position
to dictate market terms to the consumer, and the consumer to a large
extent has no voice at all.
It's a form of what I view as 'forced passive consumerism'. Those
who have the ability to control the medium can shape the market in
whatever way they see fit, and the market has little or no ability to
prevent it, in much the same way we are constantly bombarded now with
unsolicited advertisements, or as our personal information is bought
and sold as a commodity to the highest bidder without our knowledge.
I'm all for shaping the future of commerce on the net, and let's
admit it: That's what this is really all about. Big companies with
something to sell want as much control as possible over how they can
sell things or otherwise 'be present' on the net. But right now,
I'm very, very uncomfortable that all of this is going forward without
any kind of representation for those that have the most to lose in all
of this: The 'little people' who own one or maybe two domains, who
possibly run a very small business, or just want their voice to be
heard in this new medium, and don't even stand to gain monetarily from
it.
(Again, I'll acknowledge the formation of the General Assembly. But
the GA is not in my mind, and should not include DN holders. DN holders,
as long as they are directly and immediately affected by the decisions
made by the DNSO and the pDNC, should be voting members. And there are
still a number of DN holders who have yet to gain that distinction --
the individuals. It's the same old chant, but it's not going to go
away unless and until something changes.)
--
Mark C. Langston
