Re: [ga] ORG: some answers from ICANN

[Sotiropoulos <sotiris@hermesnetwork.com>]

"Gomes, Chuck" wrote:
> Would you define "obligations to share holders as corporate greed?"   > If we are comparing capitalistic approaches to more socialistic > approaches, take a look at which have fared better in the world's  
> economies.  Neither is perfect, but economic systems with real 
> incentives for business have tended to fare much better.  I suspect 
> that that is why economies all over the globe have been moving toward > systems that are more market driven.

Mr. Gomes,

My comments had nothing to do with a comparison of
economic systems.  My post had to do with the
current anti-competitive leanings of the Domain
Name System's administrators.  NSI/Verisign *is* a
monopoly, has been for going on three years now. 
How market driven is the Registry business
currently Mr. Gomes?  Why has ICANN been
protecting this state of affairs?  Speaking as an
individual, I have to wonder about such monopoly
protection and your statements about "real
incentives for business".    

Your company/NSI had no problem in sullying the
"original" scope of the .ORG domain.  There was
money in selling .ORG indiscriminately, and of
course your company has obligations to its
shareholders... I understand that much.  Same goes
for your selling of domains which were
subsequently claimed/recognized as trademark
"property" by large corporate entities, at the
expense of the individuals and small businesses
that had *legally* registered them.  After all, is
it not the case that certain domains were *not*
allowed for registration, i.e. "Oylympic"
domains?  (What's the old saying about a Law
that's only applied part of the time?)  Yet,
despite the fact that NSI knowingly sold domains
that were later held to be obvious violations of
US trademark law, NSI cannot be held to account. 
If an individual/small business were to set up
shop in pretty much any country in the world, and
begin selling what they themselves (not to mention
the "owners") recognize to be other people's
"property", would not such a person/business be
held to account before the law?  Sure, the buyers
of the "stolen property" are held to account as
well, but what about the purveyor of the "goods"?  

Nonetheless, despite this state of affairs,
NSI/VSign and ICANN, now wish to curtail the
potential revenue streams of new Registry
operators by implementing "sunrise" schemas and
otherwise favouring the IP interests of a very
small group corporate Internet Users/Abusers.  All
at the expense of those individuals and small
businesses who don't wish to sell books under a
new TLD's "amazon", or sporting goods under a new
TLD "nike", etc... but do wish for a generic or
common language term with high mnemonic value. 
So, in effect, what's good for the proverbial
goose is not good for the gander, because some
interests are now basically telling the world that
they effectively own the English (and other)
language(s) on the Internet.  Is this what you
call "real incentives for business"?  Whose
business?  

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