Re: [ga] Time to regulate the Re-Sellers

[Sotiris Sotiropoulos <sotiris@worldatlarge.org>]

Sandy Harris wrote:

>"Gomes, Chuck" wrote:
>
>>It seems to me that there is a principle that could reasonably be
>>applied here:  If there are already mechanisms in place with
>>various jurisdictions around the world to deal with particular
>>issues, then it is unnecessary for
>>ICANN to duplicate the associated functions.  
>>
>
>I agree.
>
Me too.  :-)

>
>
>>For example, I believe that most jurisdictions have anti-trust
>>laws and agencies to enforce those, so it
>>is unnecessary for ICANN to get involved in anti-trust issues.  
>>
>Yes.
>
>Of course, most juristictions also have trademark laws and
>enforcement mechanisims for them. I'd therefore say we should
>scrap at least the trademark-related parts of the UDRP.
>
Hear, here!!!!  

> 
>
>I expect to hear a chorus of agreement on that point. However,
>what would be interesting would be to hear some of those who
>disagree explain why trademark is an exception to Chuck's
>Priciple.
>
Perhaps Chuck himself will explain.  Somehow I doubt he will though.  

>
>
>>Similarly, I believe that there are consumer protection mechanisms
>>already in place in
>>most major regions of the world, so it is unnecessary for ICANN to get
>>involved in consumer protection.
>>
>
>Yes. 
>
>However, we do need to be careful that the interests of Internet
>users are well represented in the ICANN process. ICANN is
>supposed to be for the "public benefit". That's different from
>getting involved in consumer protection, but there is overlap.
>
Indeed there is some overlap, but very little when quantified with 
respect to the corporate interest protections built into the current 
ICANN structure.  The deck is heavily stacked against the public's benefit.

Sincerely,

Sotiris Sotiropoulos


--
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