| | At Large Membership and Civil Society Participation in ICANN |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
|
Name Rights Battle Takes a New Turn: Part 1 - GAC's Power Grab
|
Log in/Create an Account
| Top
| 5 comments
|
Search Discussion
|
|
|
|
The Fine Print:
The following comments are owned by whoever posted them.
We are not responsible for them in any way.
|
|
 |
Does this surprise anyone any more?
It is as it has been since the beginning. ICANN does what it wants, bows to pressure from those with the money, allows itself to be captured, and continues doing it.
When it happens to correspond to popular opinion, they drag out the consensus parade.
When it doesn't, which happens more often, they say that there wasn't any clear consensus and so they have to make an executive decision. And then someone from ICANN will call those who claim otherwise something like 'arrogant juveniles' or some such.
In the meantime, they do what they want, the in crowd makes money hand over fist, and everyone else is told to stick their head in a pig.
ICANN can't be stopped, and the US Government has bigger things on its mind, which eliminates the only avenue that had a snowball's chance in hell of reigning ICANN in.
Give up. Go home. It's over. Will the last one to leave please turn off the alternative DNS?
|
|
|
|
[ Reply to This | Parent
]
|
|
|
|
It will be most fascinating to observe the spectacle of a technical coordinating body making such decisions as to whom to award "Afghanistan.info", the first country appearing on the ISO list. Are we to understand that ICANN is holding it in trust for the Taliban? Will a California corporation convey control over "Iraq.info" to Mr. Hussein, and "Libya.info" to Mr. Qaddafi, in contravention of U.S. law relating to providing services to those coutnries?
The ISO list includes "Palestinian Territory, Occupied", but no "Palestine". Which name shall they reserve? Shall ICANN recognize "Tawain, Province of China", or simply "Taiwan"?
Which government shall control "Puerto Rico"?
To whom shall we award "Cyprus.info"?
These and similar questions are the precise reasons why Dr. Postel did not engage in the business of determining who is the recognized government of a coutnry, nor did IANA consider TLD's to be national assets of some kind. As Dr. Mueller notes, the action plan refers to the WIPO2 final report, but it is apparent that no one responsible for the resolution appears to have noticed that the WIPO2 report reccomended against this kind of nonsense, nor did anyone notice that it was the "final" report of the Second Domain Name Process. To read the plan, one would come away with the impression that WIPO made no recommendations of any kind. The action plan calls for the question "to having the matter addressed" in the WIPO2 process. It has been.
Now that WIPO has accused ICI, Roche, and other pharmaceutical companies of "abusive" domain name registrations of INN's (e.g. alcloxa.com), watching them dictate to the people who have, not only lawyers, but guns as well, should provide a new level of comedy.
|
|
|
|
[ Reply to This | Parent
]
|
|
|
|
The 13 legacy root name servers need to be handed
over to the U.S. Government's Department of Defense to make sure that ICANN and the GAC
do not terrorize the Internet.
With the 13 legacy root name servers under the
control of the U.S. Government, companies like
IOD and New.Net will have more of a chance to
have their TLD nameservers added to the legacy
root. Democracy, fairness, and freedom will be
returned to the Internet. Other companies can
then step forward to have TLDs added to the
legacy root name servers and people everywhere
can move forward.
|
|
|
|
[ Reply to This | Parent
]
|
|
|
|
|
Some additional background: GAC's request comes in the context of a near-unanimous refusal by UDRP panelists to order transfer of names in the form of countryname.com or cityname.com to representatives of governments. Governments have argued that they should get these .com domain names because they are more worthy holders of the names than are the private individuals or companies that actually registered them. They have, quite properly, lost. The concept that each domain name has a single, most worthy holder, and that the architecture of the DNS should be designed to funnel the name to that holder, is alien to the historical development of the domain name space. While the UDRP does transfer domain names to trademark holders, ICANN added that mechanism on the theory that it was nothing more than an inexpensive way for trademark holders to vindicate pre-existing legal rights, external to the domain name system, that the trademark holders would otherwise be able to vindicate in national courts. Governments have been able to assert no comparable legal rights.
It's precisely because governments have been unable to prevail under the UDRP in seeking SLDs in .com, that they've chosen another route to get the names in .info. And so far, they're succeeding; by order of ICANN, names such as formeryugoslavrepublicofmacedonia.info and southgeorgiaandthesouthsandwichislands.info have been placed off-limits to registration, at least through March 2002. (You can see the complete list here.) But the vision of the DNS this embodies, one in which central authorities have power to select the deserving recipients of particular names, is far different from the vision that now controls in the unrestricted TLDs. If governments want names for official sites outside of the ccTLDs, let ICANN establish a chartered TLD for official government sites, and leave the unrestricted TLDs unrestricted.
|
|
|
|
[ Reply to This | Parent
]
|
|
|
|
When people refer to ICANN one has to keep in mind
that this is a very SMALL population of human beings
on planet Earth. The majority of people on Earth
would not likely want their good names tarnished
by being identified as being part of ICANN.
People seem to end up in groups without considering
how that impacts their long-term reputations.
How many people would step forward in today's
day and age and wave their hand and claim to
be part of the Taliban ?
How many people will desire to be listed as a
"card carrying ICANN member" ?
Who are the top 100 ICANN participants ?
Will the U.S. Government be in MDR taking names ?
|
|
|
|
[ Reply to This | Parent
]
|
|
|
Privacy Policy: We will not knowingly give out your personal data -- other than identifying your postings in the way you direct by setting your configuration options -- without a court order. All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their
respective owner. The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008 by ICANNWatch.Org. This web site was made with Slashcode, a web portal system written in perl. Slashcode is Free Software released under the GNU/GPL license.
You can syndicate our headlines in .rdf, .rss, or .xml. Domain registration services donated by DomainRegistry.com
|
