Re: [ga] Democracy vs. Public Input - What is the process?

[Jefsey Morfin <jefsey@wanadoo.fr>]

when you consider it, the iCANN is a technical Internet start-up. But a 
strange one: they did not pick the techies as operators and put the lawyers 
on the board, they use the lawyers as operators and techies on the board. 
Franckly I do not see any VC buying such business plan.

Obviously the lawyers only know legal operations. To please the the Board 
they contain themselves into  technical cases but they have a low knowledge 
of the technical operations market, while they have a good command of the 
legal market. In techical operations you try to make the user happy because 
he pays you while in legal operations you try to protect the rights of the 
big guy who makes small users unhappy because he is the one who pays. 
(Techies discusses cons/pros with Leah, lawyers only say "she has not 
enough money").

It is very surprising how their Internet is not user oriented.

No one gave a definition of the DN yet. But we can roughly said it is a 
cyber-geographic name used instead of its IP coodinates as a geographic 
name is used instead of its NS coordinates. It helps users to go more 
easily where they want to go. London is a better menmonic than 00.10:46.12 
and Barcelona.com a better one than 192.17.21.216.

Now let consider the UDRP. This is not something to better help the users 
but to help the confuser.

If we were in a normal world. Some says barcelona.com is for business about 
Barcelona(s) and the other says it is a right of one of the Barcelona 
cities to be parked. What a lawyer says: let ask a judge. What a techie 
(and a normal person) say: what do the users think the best?

An UDRP should be a very simple automated system: the plaintif explains on 
line why the current use is confusing (the concern is confusion, not 
ownership, both for TM and DNs). He could present his own vision of the 
site with a link to hisown project. The defendant should be able to 
respond. Then a jury of randomly selected users around the world and under 
NDA (let say 1000 people, paid 1$ each per vote by the plaintif) would 
vote: "what is the one best corresponding to your undestanding of the DN?".

If the plaintif get  2/3 of the votes he is redelegated the DN. No more 
cybersquatting.

Jefsey





On 22:14 22/06/01, L Gallegos said:
>If ICANN did not delve into the social and political aspects of the
>domain name issues, then those issues would be beyond the
>scope of the GA.  However, ICANN has not only delved into these
>areas, they have become a focus.  Therefore, it is very much within
>the scope of the DNSO GA to discuss and recommend to ICANN
>on them.  Policy regarding the consequences of duplicating TLDs
>in the USG root, the effects of the UDRP on domain name holders,
>and any other policies that effect stakeholders are very much the
>reason for the existence of the DNSO.  If the GA is to ignore these
>issues and stay within the mandate of the technical aspects, then
>ICANN must do the same, as ICANN is the parent of this
>organization.
>
>Bottom-up anyone?
>
>leah
>
>On 22 Jun 2001, at 9:49, Eric Dierker wrote:
>
> > Dear all,
> >
> > I think the UDRP and Privacy issues are germain to Damain Names and their
> > registration.
> >
> > I think that many do not like to have to deal with social and political 
> issues,
> > just as many do not like to deal with sophisticated technical issues.
> >
> > But I am having trouble here understanding your postion, how do we 
> address the
> > ccTLDs being an SO and or WIPO's overbearing approach to IP if we do not
> > include social and political concerns.
> >
> > I could be wrong but as understand the terms policy and governance they 
> require
> > these types of concerns.  Certainly the idea of consensus is 
> sociological at
> > it's finest.
> >
> > It would seem that this comment is really meant for the other SOs.  I await
> > your enlightenment because I know your premise is well founded.
> >
> > Eric
> >
> > >
> > > In practical terms, the more time we dedicate to sociological and
> > > pseudo-political argumentation, the more the decisions on Domain Names
> > > issues will be taken without our input. Is this our goal? If yes, fine,
> > > let's continue, we are on the right track!
> > >
> > > Regards
> > > Roberto
> >
> > --
> > This message was passed to you via the ga-full@dnso.org list.
> > Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> > ("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
> > Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> >
>
>
>--
>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

--
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