[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [discuss] Individual representation
Randy Bush wrote:
>if the academic institution is non-commercial, why would they not wish to
>join the non-commercial constituency?
>
ICANN decided in its skewed perspective that trademark interests were
different and apart from business interests and both deserved separate
constituencies.That cctlds were different and apart from gtlds and both
deserved separate constituencies.
However, The non-commercial constituency was left as the mop-up catch-all,
for academics, libraries, non-profits and associations of all stripes,
museums, religious affiliations, and everyone else. I ask, is this fair?
From a practical matter, universities and schools, professors, teachers,
staff and students surely comprise more stakeholders than the trademark
community.
K12 schools are being wired across the U.S. through funding grants enabled
by the U.S. government. Schools are incorporating the Internet into their
curriculum from early grades (I'm on the Technology Committee of our school
district, 1,300 kids, so I get a glimpse of what is considered
age-appropriate Internet skills. Note, too, my email address, as the
Marin County Office of Education is my ISP.). Colleges like MIT have their
entire course catalogue online and that's how students register for
classes.
The trademark community has a stake because the Web opens the door to
tremendous business opportunities. The academic community has a stake
because it is deeply involved in teaching the next generation of Internet
users about this technology; the students who will be writing the next
generation of RFCs, and perhaps unravelling the mess we are developing. The
academic community has been largely ignored or given second citizen status
in the post White Paper discussions.
Schools are developing with Internet use policies for their students and
grappling with issues like what to do when a student guesses at a domain
name and lands on a porn site. Or how to set up projects with other schools
across the continent. Or whether to tie schools in a district together in
an Intranet or have them go through the county host. Or projects like
teleconferencing and a wide assortment of research projects like tracing
the results of the Americas Cup,, technology plans for the introduction of
software and the placing of new hardware, designing personal web pages and
whether they need IP addresses to set up a server for all the
administrative/staff/parent/student communication.
The difference is that this is all for the sake of education, not commerce.
The trademark concerns over a particular domain name are compelling, but so
are the varied issues the academic community has to tackle.. [You might
find the case of CLAREMONTMCKENNA.COM fairly interesting because here the
issues of First Amendment and trademark rights intersect on a college
campus.
]
But in order to participate in the DNSO, the academic community would have
to be thrown in the mix of the NCDHC or self organize. Who is going to do
that? AAUP (American Association of University Professors?) The national
PTA? The Computer Science Department of CalTech?
Puhhhlease. This all points out a basic flaw in the constituency
structure. It's a defacto insiders club of lobbying groups.
BTW - I guess people still cross post, but my initial comments were to the
ifwp list. This points out that the profusion of lists, the spillover of
issues, only adds to the confusion over these complex issues.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Ellen Rony Co-author
The Domain Name Handbook ____ http://www.domainhandbook.com
========================== ^..^ )6 =============================
ISBN 0879305150 (oo) -^-- +1 (415) 435-5010
erony@marin.k12.ca.us W W Tiburon, CA
Dot com is the Pig Latin of the Information Age
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^