RE: [wg-c] Restatement of wg-c discussion

[Mikki Barry <ooblick@netpolicy.com>]

>Three published RFCs?  1358 registered participants?  Representation from 74
>countries?  420 subscribers to the Listserver?  Relevant WIPO website
>activity exceeding 100,000 hits per month  in 5 of the 9 months, 60,ooo in
>two other and 20,000 in the last two?  Just for starters.  The published
>lists of organisations and individuals who made submissions seems to cover
>quite a diverse range of interests, including some of the regular
>protagonists on this list.


Excuse me, but the number of RFCs, participants, representatives, 
etc. is meaningless if they didn't even listen to their own panel of 
experts.  Several large segments of the world's population said that 
none of the recommendations should even be applied to their sovereign 
countries.  Hits per month are also meaningless.  Amazon.com gets 
more hits than that.  Should we follow their lead on intellectual 
property protection?

>
>  >One more time, privacy interests need to be protected from oppressive
>  >governments, from would-be stalkers, from those who wish to persecute
>  >others because of their beliefs, and from reverse hijackers who want
>  >licenses to steal domain names from others.
>
>Even though "the relevant Internet community [or should that be the RELEVANT
>internet community?] was not consulted, not informed and by some devious
>KGB/CIA not allowed to comment, the WIPO report does somehow manage to weigh
>these factors in the balance and come to the unsurprising conclusion that
>the real world needs some means of protection against the blackmailers,
>would-be hijackers and would-be conspirators.
>

As has been clearly proven before, the number of domain name disputes 
in proportion with the number of registrations has actually gone DOWN 
over the past years, not up.  Further, who is going to protect us 
against the blackmailers, would-be reverse hijackers, and the 
conspiracy theorists?  Certainly not a biased group like WIPO.