[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [wg-b] RESPONSE to submission from noncommercial community
On 10 December 1999, "Philip Sheppard" <email@example.com> wrote:
>I was surprised to see the absence of the word 'consumer' or ordinary net
>'user' in the submission of the non-commercial constituency. The reason for
>special consideration for famous names is that it is these names that are
>ripped off and pirated. The real loser is the consumer who wants to buy
>goods or services via e-commerce.
>The objective behind WG B is consumer protection. Protecting intellectual
>property is a strategy to complete that objective. For example, when a net
>consumer sends credit card details to Disney, that consumer expects it
>really is Disney who owns the web site, that it is Disney who will send the
>goods, and that Disney will be there to seek redress when nothing arrives.
>By contributing to DNSO discussion we all have a duty to avoid creating the
>world's greatest opportunity for thieves, pirates and fraudsters. This is
>why WG B is important.
Speaking as a "consumer" and "ordinary net user", I can tell you that
I'm not as likely to be duped as you might think, and that I'd rather
have an equitable namespace than your protection, thanks.
Mark C. Langston
San Jose, CA