Re: [ga] Karl's comments at the 2003 Senate hearings on allocation systems

["kidsearch" <kidsearch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I agree with you. But, the commercial interests won the battle by having the
BoD organized the way they did. Giving 2 seats to biz interests, 2 to IP
interests, which are pretty much the same most of the time, registrars 2
seats, ISPs, both of which are also businesses.

The noncommercial seats are not noncommercial in the way they vote.

And 0 seats to represent individual users.


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Jeff Williams" <jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "kidsearch" <kidsearch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: <ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; "icann board address" <icann-board@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Saturday, December 24, 2005 5:14 AM
Subject: Re: [ga] Karl's comments at the 2003 Senate hearings on allocation
systems


> Chris and all former DNSO GA members or other interested
stakeholders/users,
>
> The DNS/internet is many things to many different and diverse groups.
> Indeed the commercial interests have most of the clout these days,
> and are likely to get their way most of the time on most issues.  But
> ICANN's GNSO once known as the DNSO, with the constituency
> structure, which in my and our members opinion is skewed, is supposed
> to provide for balance amongst the many and varied interested
> stakeholders/registrants.  It failed long ago now but the ICANN BoD
> is unwilling to admit to that failure, hence leaving big business
commercial
> stakeholders an open field to take advantage of what they want, and
> how they want it.  Hence the need for sTLD's and gTLD's so as to
> at least provide havens for non-commercial activity on the internet to
> exercise their interests unfettered.  This is why when the USPTO with
> pressure from large IP interest i.e. commercial stakeholders, made
> a huge mistake in creating new classes of TM's for Domain Names,
> leading to sunrise provisions in registrations for any new LTD's so
> large IP interests could have first option to protect their marks.
>
> To me and many of our members this whole approach was backwards.
> Instead of sunrise provisions to address the USPTO's error in judgment,
> ICANN registries should be responsible for checking against TESS
> for potential TM conflicts at the time of a Domain Name registration
> is requested, and before it is granted or allowed.  No money for any
> registration at the time of a registration request should change hands
> until such a search has been compleated.  This would be in concert
> with TM law.  Yet potential interested parties for becoming registries
> and/or registrars, strongly opposed such, as such would increase their
> business ongoing cost, which would or could be passed on to
> the potential further registrants.  Yet many law firms ect., specialize
> in selling this service to the public for such searches and could be a
> viable answer to potential interested Registry or registrar industry.
>
> So now we have a ongoing quandary in which solutions abound, but
> agreed upon solutions are scarce if existent at all.  Hence the
> conundrum...
>
> And so the saga continues...
>
> kidsearch wrote:
>
> > Sotiris said "The DNS is not simply a commercial affair, Karl, stop
treating
> > it as one." and "The Internet's wild west days have come and gone."
> >
> > Unfortunately, the days when the Internet was not a commercial affair
have
> > come and gone. The ideal of an instrument to exchange ideas freely and
to
> > promote causes that were educational and not for profit is barely
visible
> > anymore. What we have here is a new media, like when radio was new, then
> > television. Except, the Internet doesn't have the same defined
boundaries.
> >
> > There are still people who use the Internet as it was conceived, but
they
> > are far in the minority. The majority of interest in the Internet is
toward
> > sex, shopping, sex, listening to music, sex, and advertising. If those
are
> > not commercial affairs, then you need to explain it to me.
> >
> > Notice, I run a nonprofit, but yet I am advertising my websites in my
sig
> > line. My commercial websites get advertised that way all the time.
Almost
> > everyone has a commercial interest in the Internet. I don't see how
treating
> > it any other way will help when ICANN, WIPO, and all the big
corporations
> > are treating it that way. It's run by the Department of "Commerce",
which by
> > it's very nature means the primary concern is commercial.
> >
> > Chris McElroy, President,
> > Kidsearch Network
> > http://www.KidsearchNetwork.org
> > http://www.MissingChildrenBlog.com
> > http://www.RunawayTeens.org
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Sotiris Sotiropoulos" <sotiris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > To: <ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Sent: Thursday, December 22, 2005 1:33 AM
> > Subject: Re: [ga] Karl's comments at the 2003 Senate hearings on
allocation
> > systems
> >
> > > Karl Auerbach wrote:
> > >
> > > >"I have *always* held the position that there should be no
> > > >arbitrary, and particularly that there should be no
> > > >non-technical barriers, denying anyone the ability to go out
> > > >there into the domain name business, spend his/her money,
> > > >and make either a ton of money or loose his/her shirt. I
> > > >said it in my campaign platform back in 2000 -
> > > > http://www.cavebear.com/icann-board/platform.htm#dnspol-tldpol
> > >
> > > Well, there had to be some reason as to why I did not vote for
> > > you... though I do agree with you on certain things there are
> > > others which I cannot accept at this time.
> > >
> > > >I live in that Wild West - it was pretty wild around here
> > > >(California in general and the Monterey bay in particular)
> > > >in 1846. And that wildness resulted in a pretty good place.
> > >
> > > The reason it resulted in a "pretty good place" is because at
> > > some point, a centralized authority stepped in and applied
> > > order and rules.  The mining towns and cattle villes were
> > > quite lawless until the state and then federal governments
> > > started to apply laws by sending in marshals and, if
> > > necessary, the Army.  The Internet's wild west days have come
> > > and gone.
> > >
> > > >But getting back to the point - People are not harmed by
> > > >choice.
> > >
> > > That would be a pretty hard statement to make at a drug rehab
> > > centre to a bunch of cocaine/crack addicts.  But hey, they
> > > were free to choose right?  Sometimes people *are* harmed, or
> > > more to the point, sometimes society as a whole is harmed.
> > >
> > > >By-the-way, DNS simply is not a taxonomic system. Period. The
> > > >fact >that it has been used by many to be one does not make
> > > >it one nor >does that use mean that it should be locked away
> > > >and that others >should be forbidden to try to make new uses
> > > >of DNS.
> > >
> > > Taxonomies effect a consistent, shared language used to
> > > organize unstructured information from multiple locations.
> > > Taxonomy is essentially systematization: a division into
> > > ordered groups or categories.  I'd say the DNS qualifies as a
> > > taxonomic system in every sense because each and every suffix
> > > proposed to date qualifies as taxonomic by its very nature,
> > > including your .ewe.
> > >
> > > >Your argument sounds to me like one that said that telephone
> > > > wires, because they have been used to carry voice in the
> > > >past, can not be used to carry data/DSL because that would
> > > >confuse telephone users.
> > >
> > > Not at all.  I am saying that the Internet (and dns in
> > > particular) are much more than simply a telephone exchange
> > > system and ought not to be treated or viewed as one.  When
> > > language itself became a technology, we were no longer dealing
> > > with commodities like coal, oil, gas or electricity.
> > > Language, by its very nature is an ontological construct.
> > > When DNS was invented a whole new manner of interacting with
> > > technology was made available.  The DNS is not simply a
> > > commercial affair, Karl, stop treating it as one.
> > >
> > > >And if those standards go beyond the simple technical ability
> > > >to run >a TLD according to internet standards then you are
> > > >imposing an >economic and social policy regime that amounts
> > > >to the making of a >law. And as a general matter, at least
> > > >here in the US, that's >something for the legislatures to do,
> > > >else it is simply restraint of >trade which may itself be
> > > >unlawful.
> > >
> > > Karl, we both know ICANN was never simply a technical
> > > oversight body, in fact, that's what the rest of the world is
> > > upset about and what the WSIS discussions were all about.  We
> > > cannot turn back the clock and the USDOC doesn't appear to be
> > > inclined to do so either, I'm afraid.  So, unless you plan to
> > > effect some change in USDOC policy vis a vis the Internet and
> > > ICANN, I suggest you join the rest of us in the present day
> > > realities of the situation.
> > >
> > > Sotiris Sotiropoulos
> > >
> > >
>
> Regards,
>
> --
> Jeffrey A. Williams
> Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 134k members/stakeholders strong!)
> "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" -
>    Abraham Lincoln
>
> "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is
> very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt
>
> "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B;
> liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by
> P: i.e., whether B is less than PL."
> United States v. Carroll Towing  (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947]
> ===============================================================
> Updated 1/26/04
> CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security
> IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng.  INEG. INC.
> ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402
> E-Mail jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>  Registered Email addr with the USPS
> Contact Number: 214-244-4827
>
>