[ga-full] Re: NCDNHC proposed resolution on famous names and new TLDs

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

All assembly members,

  Some more info/discussion ongoing on the noncom list on TLD's
================

Subject:
             Re: NCDNHC proposed resolution on famous names and new TLDs

        Date:
             Tue, 28 Mar 2000 22:54:53 -0800
       From:
             Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>
 Organization:
             INEGroup Spokesman
         To:
             "Mark C. Langston" <noncom@bitshift.org>
         CC:
             NCDNHC-Discuss@lyris.isoc.org
        BCC:
             DOMAIN-POLICY <DOMAIN-POLICY@LISTS.INTERNIC.NET>
  References:
             1




Mark and all,

Mark C. Langston wrote:

> Tell me, Kevin -
>
>   At what point are we supposed to stop fighting for what is right and

> just, and start selling out to political expedience?  just because a
> means to an end exists does not make the means correct.  No amount
> of justification can do so, either.

  I agree with you here completely Mark.  It is also so that if the
means
is bad or seriously flawed, the ends can be no better in reality.  Many
people seem to not understand this well.

>
>
> I, for one, will continue to fight for the addition of new TLDs to the

> root, _and_ resist the demands of the IP interests in these areas.
> They already have the DMCA.  They are beginning to get UCITA.  They've

> got WIPO, their own little international treaty organization.  They
> were handed the UDRP.  They've had the letter and spirit of copyright
> and mark law twisted, perverted, subverted, and supervened.

  Again agreed here as well.  New TLD's are certainly needed and
mandated in the White Paper.  It is only the how and which ones
that is really in question here.

>
>
> I refuse to give them one more inch of my personal freedom and my
> property rights in _any_ arena.  I believe this is a just cause for
> which to fight, and I will not give up in the name of expediency.

  Good for you, and I personally won't either.  I know most of our
members will not as well.

>
>
> Personally, I feel that if the IP interests think they hold so much
> sway that they can not only threaten the stability of the Internet,
> but actually effect an instability, they're welcome to try.

  They can only for a time, that's about it.  The stakeholders will and
have
already to a small degree found many ways to route around damage.  ICANN

and WIPO along with the IP interest have thus far supplied an ample
amount of
damage thus far.

>
>
> I've a sneaking suspicion they have more sense than to try something
> like that, however.  The backlash would be more costly to them than
> all their prior efforts combined.
>
> We each choose where we draw our lines.  I draw mine here.

  Here Here!

>
>
> --
> Mark C. Langston
> mark@bitshift.org
> Systems & Network Admin
> San Jose, CA
>
> ---
> You are currently subscribed to ncdnhc-discuss as:
Jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
> To unsubscribe send a blank email to
leave-ncdnhc-discuss-1799I@lyris.isoc.org

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman INEGroup (Over 95k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number:  972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208


--
This message was passed to you via the ga-full@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html