[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [wg-b] me thinks thou dost protect too much ...
On Fri, Apr 07, 2000 at 03:36:36PM -0400, Hartman, Steve wrote:
> The percentage of cybersquatters may be small, but the absolute numbers are
> large.The one percent rate is ten thousand registrants per every million.
> But that aside, no one would argue that we shouldn't have laws against theft
> or pollution because the number of thieves or polluters comprise only a
> small percentage of the population. The larger point is that cybersquatting
> is not simply a private injury; it's also public injury, an injury to the
> communicative value of the Internet. Which is not to say that I agree with
> your remarks that trademark owners have received preferences at the expense
> of non-trademark owners. What preferential treatment are you referring to?
> Steve Hartman
> Nabisco, Inc.
"an injury to the communicative value of the Internet"?
When did the owner of $FOO.$BAR break ARP caching, create routing
loops, cut fiber, or corrupt frames?
The "communicative value" to which you and those like you refer is not
a value to the public. It is instead a direct value to the owner of
the domain, and no one else.
The issue of who owns what domain name does not inhibit, degrade, or
eliminate the proper functioning of the Internet. Indeed, few people
care at all if Nabisco owns Nabisco.com, or if Mr. Nabi foobert of Maryland
owns it to advertise his at-home software business, Nabi's Co.
The only thing it impacts at all is the trademark owners bottom line.
The sooner you corporations stop painting these issues with the broad
brush of public good and start being honest with your consumer base,
the sooner you might find a friendlier ear for your issues.
To appropriate a quote from Russ Allbery, "I know what this network is
for, and you can't have it."
Mark C. Langston
Systems & Network Admin
San Jose, CA