Re: Answering a question - Was Re: [ga] Stolen domains...
Karl and all assembly members or other interested stakeholders/users,
Karl Auerbach wrote:
> On Mon, 9 Dec 2002 Jsavirimuthu@aol.com wrote:
> > > There are many who think that our Internet situation is somehow new and
> > > unique. It is not. The internet is not the first situation in which
> > > people have had to deal with cross jurisdictional protection of perceived
> > > rights....
> > With regard to the above, colleagues (particularly those who have read
> > Michael's commentary on the WIPO report) will recognise the following:
> > The Domain Name System (DNS) has presented a set of problems for
> > intellectual property policy, as well as a set of opportunities, that
> > are perhaps unique in the historical development of the intellectual
> > property system. The problems arise from the spontaneous adaptation of
> > a technical addressing systemto functions and purposes beyond those for
> > which it was originally designed.
> I'm not willing to immediately grant that DNS is unique. Certainly when
> the statute of Anne (in the early 1700's?) was enacted nobody had any
> concept of sound recordings, semiconductor masks, or movies.
> > In addition to providing a human friendly, reliable and stablerooting
> > system, the DNS has given rise to identifiers that are used
> > forcommercial, cultural, governmental, political and social purposes,
> > both on the Internet itself and in similar contexts beyond the Internet.
> I personally find it extremely unfortunate that DNS has been used in this
> way. DNS is not a good tool for this kind of use. We have self
> mesmorized ourselves about DNS and have established mechanisms such as
> ICANN that have ossified our thinking about what it is that we really want
> out of Internet directory systems. Notice I said systems, plural, not
> system, singlar. We need directory systems for the Internet that help
> people to do what they want and need to do rather than tying everything to
> the Procrustian iron bed of DNS and its limitations.
Very much agreed here. The ICANN BoD and staff, now long captured
by the very folks that during the gTLD-MoU and IAHC debates and
attempts to take over the internet and in particular the DNSO and
IP registries, has hoist upon the stakeholders/users a set of policies
that are not well suited for the DNS specifically. Yet there are groups
and organizations that had warned again and again, you among them Karl,
that saw this coming for years now. And some of these groups are
still working to create better technical mechanisms to achieve exactly what
you are suggesting...
> > Would I be right in inferring from your general view both on this email
> > list and recent account of your thoughts in the newspaper article that
> > we now have:
> > (i) dissonance between theory and practice (ie ad hoc jurisprudence or
> > in your words "amateur" rulings)
> The UDRP was established by the intellectual property industry, for the
> intellectual property industry, and exclusively for the benefit of the
> intellectual property industry. The UDRP was defined in isolation, and
> indeed with disdain for, the interests of the public. And the system that
> applies the UDRP is worse, far worse.
Very much agreed here. The UDRP was a horrible and special interest
group imposed process that did not have nor has now the support of
any assemblance of the consensus of stakeholders/users participating.
> > (ii) governance policy being informed by pragmatism rather than
> > established "theoretical" arguments; consequently the "first come first
> > served" rule becoming captured by the rent seeking conglomerates?
> The word "pragmatism" is something that is context sensitive - what is
> "pragmatic" to an captain of IP industry might be quite non-pragmatic to
> someone who likes to read old books.
> Good policy comes out of a well fought fight between all parties of
> interest, bad policy comes out of single-interest fiats.
How true. Yet many hard fought debates were either ignored or
discounted by the captured ICANN BOD and staff and self interest,
special interest group borne policy was and continues to be imposed
by this captured ICANN BoD and staff...
> In ICANN we have
> had selected "stakeholder" - pre-chosen groups who have been given the
> right to define policy onto all of us. Why has ICANN been formed so that
> only those with the most focused financial interests have been allowed
> into the forums of policy creation?
The answer to this question is of course obvious.
> The rest of us are affected by these
> policies, we are hurt by them, yet we are only allowed to endure those
> policies, not to participate in their formation.
And here inlies and has been the problematic central process to
the ICANN mess...
> This message was passed to you via the email@example.com list.
> Send mail to firstname.lastname@example.org to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 127k members/stakeholders strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
Contact Number: 214-244-4827 or 972-244-3801
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
This message was passed to you via the email@example.com list.
Send mail to firstname.lastname@example.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html