RE: [ga-roots] On why the root is not open

[Roeland Meyer <rmeyer@mhsc.com>]

> From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand [mailto:harald@alvestrand.no]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2001 11:55 PM
> 
> At 11:56 15.05.2001 -0400, Milton Mueller wrote:

> >However, one must add this important note:
> >
> >In choosing an arbitrary point between "a hundred" and "a million,"
> >DNSO chose 7 - very much on the low side. We all know why.
> >The TM lobby wants a restricted and highly regulated name space
> >and a variety of incumbent registries don't want additional 
> competition.
> 
> The TM lobby saw scaling problems for the dispute resolution 
> procedures.

They may have claimed it, but it was an unsupported claim. They have the
onus of defending their mark, we don't have a reciprocal responsibility to
help them. In fact, if we help them, we should be getting something out of
it. We aren't. We gave them something for nothing...why?

> >It is now clear that 7 was far too restrictive, as many of 
> us in theWG
> >argued at the time. Too many good proposals didn't get accepted.
> >(My proposal calling for 500 new ones in the first
> >round was supported by about 1/3 of the WG)
> >
> >Indeed, we won all the economic and technical arguments.
> >We were just outmuscled politically.
> 
> Be careful about the word "we". It is often hard to know who you are 
> referring to.

Those of us in WG-C.

> In this particular case, I don't think you want to include me 
> in your "we", 
> since I believe many of the TM lobby's arguments should be 
> classified as economic, not political.

Yes, and in WG-B, they never proved their case. I was in both. In WG-C their
only arguments were whines about cost of trademark enforcement. When they
got the mark, one of the conditions are that they have to pay for their own
defense of that mark. They are the exclusive stewards of that mark, by law.
New TLDs do not add to that cost. That case was never proven. 

As we see now, UDRP makes this cost ridiculously low. But, that was a WG-A
issue, a closed and stacked WG with a rigged outcome. No wonder Joaqim isn't
around anymore. He should be ashamed and so should Amadeu.

The net result is that their whine was invalid in the first place.

> >What cannot be emphasized too strongly is that ICANN does not
> >operate in a political and economic vacuum. If it artificially
> >restricts the market too much, there will be attempts to bypass
> >it. Thus, ICANN must not blame organizations like New.net
> >for "instability" it should only blame itself.

100% agreed.
--
This message was passed to you via the ga-roots@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-roots" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html