Re[5]: [wg-c] Re: IP/TM Concerns & New GTLDs

["William X. Walsh" <william@dso.net>]

Tuesday, August 03, 1999, 10:56:54 AM, Kevin J. Connolly <CONNOLLK@rspab.com> wrote:

> "William X. Walsh" <william@dso.net> 08/03/99 01:32PM wrote:
>>Tuesday, August 03, 1999, 8:47:04 AM, Ken Stubbs <kstubbs@dninet.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> your response here appears to ignore the practical politics involved with
>>> expansion of GTLD's.
>>
>>> like it or not this is reality here and if we can't present what is viewed
>>> as a "responsible" plan for expansion tanking into account the sensitivities
>>> & concerns of the commercial and intellectual property community then we are
>>> going to go nowhere.
>>
>>Who says?  You carefully avoid the section of my comments that
>>mentions just how bad it would be for their image if they decide to
>>play school yard bully.  The internet community would never stand for
>>it.

> Right.  Like the "Community" reacted negatively to the NSI/AIM hatchet job last time.

>>
>>> maybe you consider it a sellout.. frankly i consider it a close  look at
>>> reality
>>
>>So its reality that we must sell out the rights of individuals because
>>they lack the funds to lobby effectively?

> Let's consider that NSI does not have a great track record of protecting 
> individual rights in domain names.  Preserving the status quo is not a blow for liberty.

Who is arguing for perserving the status quo?  Not I.

Who is championing NSI as an ideal?  Not I.  I am sharply critical of
their DRP.

>>
>>Come on, lets call it what it is and stop skirting the issue!
>>
>>Do you want a decision based on REAL fairness and with a sound basis
>>in law, or do you want one based on school yard politics?

> We're not dealing with legalities here, just raw power.

"Raw power?"  You give them more power than they really have.

>>
>>The trademark/IP interests will never wield that sword you want
>>everyone to picture is hanging over this process.  The minute they do
>>they will be the subject of more backlash and bad publicity than they
>>can handle.  They know this.  This is hard cold political reality.
>>But they don't want you to know this.

> Why should this time be any different from the last time?  This sword that 
> you think the IP/TM constituency is so afraid to wield has already decapitated 
> the GTLD-MoU.  It's sharp enough to decapitate ICANN.

They did not kill the gTLD-MoU.  The gTLD-MoU was severely deficient
on its own, and indeed had broad opposition in the internet community.
This is what killed the gTLD-MoU.  It sought to replace one type of
autocracy with another, as some on this list have sought to do by
restricting the type and model of new registries.

>>
>>What is disgusting is the sellout to these interests by a small
>>special interest group who is looking to the trademark/commercial
>>interests to support their agenda

> Nope.  It's just an attempt to blunt their opposition.  There's no net gain 
> to the IP/TM community from expanding the TLD namespace.  If they 
> can be convinced that the costs are low enough, then maybe they'll 
> allocate their political clout in a different direction and let the TLD 
> namespace grow.

You presume that they have enough clout to stop it.  I don't agree,
and see no evidence of it.  And even if they did, to compromise the
basic principles of due process for the SOLE purpose of promoting one
groups agenda with regard to new gTLDs is absolutely wrong on every
level.  If the concept of new gTLDs cannot stand on its own, without
capitulating the very principles of due process, then we shouldn't
even be considering do it at this time (and I do NOT believe that).
Once this door is opened, it cannot be closed later.  Once you open
the door to deprive domain name holders of their most basic
protections, it will be near impossible to reverse that course.

>  with regard to how new gTLDs should
>>be handled in exchange for selling out the rights of domain name
>>holders.  The price is too high.  We have seen this unholy alliance
>>for the last 8 months at least.
>>
>>If you are going to push policies based on who has the most money to
>>spend, at least call it what it is and don't try and disguise it as
>>something else.  School yard politics are deciding the future of the
>>rights of domain name holders (or should I say lack of rights?).
>>
>>It is truly sad to see otherwise intelligent people try and paint it
>>in such a different light.

> It is political.  It's naive to suggest that legalities have anything to do with 
> this step in Internet evolution.  PG Media v. NSI proved that legal thinking 
> is a dead end street on these issues.

PG Media's case was flawed from the start.  They made themselves the
laughing stock of the entire DNS debate by their ridiculous claims to
such a large number of new gTLDs.  This gave them little to no
credibility, and their case was and is doomed to failure.

To use them as an example is a flawed application of logic, and has
absolutely no bearing on the subject of this discussion.

--
William X. Walsh
General Manager, DSo Internet Services
Email: william@dso.net  Fax:(209) 671-7934


(IDNO MEMBER)
Support the Cyberspace Association, the 
constituency of Individual Domain Name Owners 
http://www.idno.org