Re: IANA: Why Trademarks? (was Re: Emergent Press Conference)

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Carl and all,

Carl Oppedahl wrote:
> 
> At 01:47 PM 11/8/97 -0800, Duane Little wrote:
> 
> >Jim Dixon wrote:
> >>
> >> On Sat, 8 Nov 1997, Duane Little wrote:
> >>
> >> > As for "poor decisions" and "screwing up," what on Earth possessed
> >> > Postel, et al, to get in bed with the ITU and the trademark interests in
> >> > the first place?  Do academic credentials somehow cripple a man's powers
> >> > of reasoning?
> >>
> >> I can't speak for Jon Postel, of course, but we all make mistakes, don't
> >> we?
> >>
> >Yes, little teeny ones like giving away a vast public resource to a
> >cartel fraught with vested interests.  Oops!  Oh, well.
> 
> Your comment ignores that the other option presently before the Internet
> community is giving away a vast public resource to a profit-making,
> publicly-held company with a long track record of making stupid policies,
> always in secret.

  Good point here Carl.
> 
> >> I don't agree with everything that the MOUvement has done, especially
> >> their overly close relations with the ITU, INTA, and WIPO.  But we have to
> >> move on from the NSI monopoly.
> >
> >Sure, let's move on to an ITU-inspired cartel that makes laws of its own
> >and is outside the control of US or any other national courts.  It was
> >all just a _little_ mistake after all...
> 
> Everything that NSI does, is done in secret.  NSI ignores any public
> commentary, and repeatedly makes policies and takes positions that favor
> itself over the interest of the Internet community.  In contrast, gTLD-MOU
> has always had a process of open commentary.

  This comment in reaponse to Duanes is only partly true.  Yes, there
is an open forun (Gtld-Discuss) and previous (IAHC-Discuss), which was
closed
down without warning.  Hardly open in my opinion.  Not to mention the
statments that Dave Crocker and others of the IAHC process/perposal said
on the IANC-Discuss list with respect to ignoring several folks on that
list as well as again on the gTLD-discuss list as well.  This is not 
indicitive of an open process.

>  Those who did not participate
> in NSI's policy-making have a good excuse -- NSI excluded everyone.  No
> such excuse is available to those who failed to participate in the
> IAHC/gTLD-MOU process.

  Not compleatly relevent.  And you know it, Carl.  As a lawyer, I am
supprised at you here!  :(
> 
> >> CORE seems to be the only realistic alternative on the table.
> >
> >Sure -- take away the ITU, INTA, WIPO and the offshore corporate
> >trickery, and it might make sense.
> 
> It would be much more helpful if you were to respond to the point.  What,
> in your view, is the realistic alternative?

  See comments submitted to the NTIA. Also my 7 points. 
> 
> >> They improved their articles of association
> >> (their "constitution"), they recruited another 80 or so registrars.  Is it
> >> possible to further modify the POC and CORE so that they become
> >> acceptable?
> >>
> >As above...  Any chance they'll do that?  No?  Then to hell with 'em, I
> >say, and let's play some other game.
> 
> I see.  And your "other game", will it be fully formed and operational by
> next March, the critical time with respect to monopoly control of COM by NSI?

  Expansion on the 7 points I posted on this very list could be
operational
in 3 months.

Regards,

-- 
Jeffrey A. Williams
DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java Development Eng.
Information Eng. Group. IEG. INC. (Soon to be INEG. INC) Stay tunned! 
Phone :913-294-2375 (v-office)
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com

Wisdom:   "One who knows others is wise,
           one who knows himself is enlightened."
           Lao Tzu