[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Draft New Draft
- Date: Mon, 01 Feb 1999 16:22:28 +0100
- From: Javier SOLA <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Subject: RE: Draft New Draft
>> At 11:23 31/01/99 -0600, John B. Reynolds wrote:
>> >from the ORSC/AIP "Draft New Draft":
>> >> At the inception of the DNSO, its members and supporters reaffirm the
>> >> historical rules under which all participants in the domain name system
>> >> have operated to date. Nothing about the creation of the DNSO
>> is meant to overturn the status quo as it exists at the inception.
>> Specifically, the
>> >> DNSO reaffirms the rules under which the TLD registries and registrars
>> >> have operated to date.
How can DNSO reaffirm a set of rules through which all gTLDs have been run
as a monopoly by one single company? The European Union Antitrust laws, for
one, will not allow this type of arrangement.
How can DNSO reaffirm that we have to follow NSi Dispute Resolution Policy,
when WIPO is setting up new rules fair to non-US rightholders?
How can DNSO reaffirm that the ccTLDs of some countries (aimed at having
people from that country under one single domain) are in the hands of
enterpreneurs who are asking DNSO to make sure that the country cannot take
that domain back.
If what ORSC is asking is to reafirm the spirit under which the present
domain system was built, I would wholeheartedly support that.
If what ORSC wants is to use the letter of 1591 to support that DNSO
maintains the deviations that have been created by the NSi monolopy or the
fact that some ccTLDs are managed for profit in no relation with the
country the ISO code belongs to, then I am definitely against.
We are not here to defend the profit of a few againt the general interest
of Internet users.