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

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

Duane and all,

Duane Little wrote:
> 
> Jim Dixon wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, 8 Nov 1997, Duane Little wrote:
> >
> > > > It's easy to criticize the MOUvement, especially in retrospect.  But
> > > > it's doubtful that anyone else would have done a better job with
> > > > similar resources.  Other people would have made different mistakes,
> > > > some of them equally large.
> > > >
> > > As a defense of the existing errors, this is utterly meaningless.
> >
> > Would you have done a better job?  Can you describe a solution that
> > would not arouse at least as much fierce resistance as the IAHC
> > solution did?  Would you have been, are you being, any more reasonable
> > than Perry?  Any less argumentative than Dave Crocker?
> >
> I simply said that the assertion everyone makes errors is not a valid
> defense of the MoUstakes.  I didn't claim to be God.  But in fact, I
> think it could be better done by anyone at all with good sense.  The MoU
> crowd are domainated by a few special interests.  They were outright
> IDIOTS to create that situation.  I still fail utterly to comprehend why
> the ITU et cetera were allowed such overwhelming, undeserved and
> unearned representation in the process.

  Yes.  Not to mention that I never saw nor heard any consideration of
the internet community participation in considering the ITU as part of
the
process.  It seems tht the than "Executive commitee" (Unelected BTW),
sought to include the ITU in the process.  This was at least
disingenious
at best.
> 
> The word "error" doesn't describe it.

  I don't think it was an error at all.  Deliberate is more like it. 
ANd
that shows a lack of intrest in the Internet Community at large as well
a real stakeholders in particular.
> 
> > I am not defending existing errors.  I am just pointing out the
> > obvious: whatever anyone proposes in this area is going to be flawed.
> >
> Fine.  Probably so.  Let's have some _different_ flaws.

  I dont agree with either of you here.  Flaws in the perposal,
can be worked out with a proper structure that is inclusive of
the Internet Community at large, and stakeholders in particular.
After all they are the ones paying for it.
> 
> > > > 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.
> >
> > I think that I more or less agree.
> >
> Thank you.  I hoped so.
> 
> > > > 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.
> >
> > _What_ other game?  Any alternative suggestion has to be acceptable to
> > the same ill-assorted group of interests that the IAHC/POC had to deal
> > with.
> 
> Woah now.  They didn't _deal_ with them.  They rode roughshod over them
> as much as they possibly could, their direction and agenda primarily
> determined by the interests of the Godawful ill-conceived original
> membership of the IAHC.

  Finnaly!  Someown that has been truely paying attention.  Good man
Duane!  I have been saying that the leadership in the IAHC group,
and later the MoU drafters, was poor at best, for nearly a year now.
> 
> > Can you point out any alternative that is going to be acceptable
> > to the US government, other national governments, the ISPs, existing
> > domain name registries, the NICs, trade associations, users groups,
> > the IETF, and other Internet groups, let alone the trademark lobby,
> > the telcos, other intellectual property interests, etc etc?
> >
> Well, you've just pointed out most of whom any _real_ proposal should
> consult.  Any assertion that those people you list were really consulted
> and allowed into the process by the IAHC and its spawn is a near-total
> falsehood.

  Not only a falsehood, but never intended form some of the comments
that Dave Crocker has made on this very list.  Jim got into this
discussion late in the discussion process, so I don't know how he
could make this comment anyway.
> 
> A new start isn't impossible, it _isn't_ too late, and the (hopefully
> fatal) errors of the IAHC can be easily, easily avoided.

  I agree.  I don't know that a clean slate needs to be the starting
point, but it surely is not to late.  >;)
> 
> Duane
> 

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