Greg Skinner wrote:
> Kerry Miller wrote:
>
> > Since whether a 'technical' structure can swing that seems to be
> > a very dubious proposition, the central argument for ICANNs
> > existence is thus demolished: shouldnt the whole 'experiment'
> > therefore be handed back to the folks who set it up?
>
> Assuming, of course, that they want to run it. However, I would not
> expect that many of them want to touch issues of naming policy. You
> can check the namedroppers archives, in which Postel and others
> deliberately stayed away from naming policy in the original DNS
> conception.
>
> --gregbo
>
Based on Kerry's previous paragraph, where he says:
> Its a fact only because the marketing honchos who burst onto the
> 'open' Internet circa 1993 made it seem that way, without thinking
> one moment of technical, legal or logical aspects. Having muscled
> in, now they want to have their 'competitive' shortsightedness
> validated -- and hand off all the legal aspects to WIPO et al. If there
> was a shred of logic remaining in the system, it would be clear that
> all the 'perceived' TM/DN conflicts are their own making, and they
> should have to carry the bag themselves.
I think he meant NSI, whose Web site says: "Register your name in all 3
extensions (.com, .net, .org) to create a stronger Internet identity" when
it tells you a .com is available. It used to say in big letters on the
front page: "Don't forget to get .org and .net too!" or something like that.
If that's NSI's idea of good name space management, then maybe they _should_
be given the whole DN-TM mess to sort out. Surely with such a ridiculous
'business plan' they put hundreds of millions away to self-insure against
the whole scam blowing up in their faces?
Craig McTaggart
Graduate Student
Faculty of Law
University of Toronto
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
