Re: [wg-b] RESPONSE to submission from noncommercial community

[mark@bitshift.org]

On 10 December 1999, "Philip Sheppard" <philip.sheppard@aim.be> wrote:


>I was surprised to see the absence of the word 'consumer' or ordinary net
>'user' in the submission of the non-commercial constituency. The reason for
>special consideration for famous names is that it is these names that are
>ripped off and pirated. The real loser is the consumer who wants to buy
>goods or services via e-commerce.
>
>The objective behind WG B is consumer protection. Protecting intellectual
>property is a strategy to complete that objective. For example, when a net
>consumer sends credit card details to Disney, that consumer expects it
>really is Disney who owns the web site, that it is Disney who will send the
>goods, and that Disney will be there to seek redress when nothing arrives.
>
>By contributing to DNSO discussion we all have a duty to avoid creating the
>world's greatest opportunity for thieves, pirates and fraudsters. This is
>why WG B is important.


Speaking as a "consumer" and "ordinary net user", I can tell you that
I'm not as likely to be duped as you might think, and that I'd rather
have an equitable namespace than your protection, thanks.

-- 
Mark C. Langston
mark@bitshift.org
Systems Admin
San Jose, CA