[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [wg-c] Restatement of wg-c discussion
Mallesons Stephen Jaques
Please disregard the confidentiality notice which is, as rightly pointed
out, meaningless in this context.
Mikki Barry said:
>We've been over this before. The WIPO process ignored dissenting
>opinions, including those opinions of their own "panel of experts."
>The relevant Internet community was NOT consulted, was NOT informed,
>and was NOT allowed to comment.
Three published RFCs? 1358 registered participants? Representation from 74
countries? 420 subscribers to the Listserver? Relevant WIPO website
activity exceeding 100,000 hits per month in 5 of the 9 months, 60,ooo in
two other and 20,000 in the last two? Just for starters. The published
lists of organisations and individuals who made submissions seems to cover
quite a diverse range of interests, including some of the regular
protagonists on this list.
>One more time, privacy interests need to be protected from oppressive
>governments, from would-be stalkers, from those who wish to persecute
>others because of their beliefs, and from reverse hijackers who want
>licenses to steal domain names from others.
Even though "the relevant Internet community [or should that be the RELEVANT
internet community?] was not consulted, not informed and by some devious
KGB/CIA not allowed to comment, the WIPO report does somehow manage to weigh
these factors in the balance and come to the unsurprising conclusion that
the real world needs some means of protection against the blackmailers,
would-be hijackers and would-be conspirators.
Warwick A Rothnie
Mallesons Stephen Jaques Melbourne
Direct line (61 3) 9643 4254
Fax (61 3) 9643 5999
From: Mikki Barry [mailto:email@example.com]
Sent: Friday, 17 March 2000 10:06:AM
Subject: RE: [wg-c] Restatement of wg-c discussion
>Mallesons Stephen Jaques
How can something posted to a working group mailing list be confidential?
>Discussion of many of the items said to be "under discussion" in Mark
>Measday's summary appears to be very thin.
> >What information should be made public by the registry(ies) and how? A:
>The April 1999 WIPO Report, The Management of Internet Names and Addresses,
>(which involved a far more extensive consultation process than this working
>group can claim) made important recommendations on this point at paragraphs
>66, 73, 81, 86 and 90. It can be found at <
>At the risk of incurring massive personal abuse from those who believe they
>should be given licences to print money without any corresponding
>obligations, these recommendations would seem to be the minimum
>Warwick A Rothnie
>Mallesons Stephen Jaques Melbourne
>Direct line (61 3) 9643 4254
>Fax (61 3) 9643 5999
>Obligations of the registry(ies). A: under discussion
>(please note this does not represent my personal opinions)