Re: Re[2]: [wg-c] Re: IP/TM Concerns & New GTLDs

["Mark C. Langston" <skritch@home.com>]

On 3 August 1999, "Kevin J. Connolly" <CONNOLLK@rspab.com> wrote:

>This would be funny if it weren't such a waste of bandwidth.  The
>last round of the DN wars went to the opponents of TLD expansion.
>Lots of people say it was due to a "lack of legitimacy" or "failure
>to heed the voice of the Internet Community," but those were just
>buzzwords foisted by the oppo nents of TLD expansion.  The expansion
>was put down by a very well orchestrate d PR campaign that enlisted
>the support of the IP/TM community.  And NSI.  Som e people even
>think that the whole foofarah was orchestrated by NSI.  Certainl y
>there's little doubt but that NSI learned by the experience.

I'm confused again.  I thought it's been argued that the TM/IP
community weren't against expansion?

>This time, the IP/TM community is not yet galvanized in opposition to
>TLD expa nsion.  All we need to do to keep it this way is to avoid
>policy decisions lik e "we're rolling out 150 new gTLDs for every
>Tom, Dick and Harry who wants one ."  In other words, the chorus
>needs to be "gentle, incremental expansion of t he TLD name space
>accompanied by development of fair and economical dispute re solution
>mechanisms."

1)  Once again, this is tantamount to extortion:  "Do it this way,
or they're taking their ball and going home."  I'm not seeing any 
evidence to the contrary -- just round after round of the "TM interests
will have their way" chorus.

2)  Fair and economical to who?  Here again, this seems to only 
consider how the TM interests feel.  Until an DRP is created that
considers not only the desires and pocketbooks of the TM interests, but
of the individual as well, it cannot be called "fair and economical".

>Either the WGs can develop methods for doing things this way, or we
>can end up being disregarded by the Board of ICANN.  Those of us who
>take this process s eriously should keep in mind that setting up a
>report which the ICANN Board wi ll have to disregard simply gives the
>diehard opponents of expansion (the radi cal TM community + NSI)
>convenient handles for a new PR campaign.

As long as the positions are argued from a stance wherein nobody but
the TM interests have their way, there will be no progress made.

And that's unfortunate, because it's exactly what they want.
You see, this is a win-win for the TM interests.  Either they get
their way here, or they kill whatever proposal we produce.  Or
they let people like you continue to argue their position for them,
and people like me will keep balking at the absurdity of the position.
In the end, no work is done, and they've protected their interests.


-- 
Mark C. Langston	     			Let your voice be heard:
mark@bitshift.org				     http://www.idno.org
Systems Admin					    http://www.icann.org
San Jose, CA					     http://www.dnso.org