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

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

Kent and all,

Kent Crispin wrote:
> 
> On Sun, Nov 09, 1997 at 12:16:21PM +0000, Jim Dixon wrote:
> [...]
> >
> > As far as I can see, the IAHC/POC's most serious error was in alienating
> > people through their confrontational style, their inability to pull their
> > punches.
> 
> This assessment overlooks an important fact: the DNS wars had been
> going on full tilt, in a wildly confrontational manner, for 2 years
> before the IAHC was formed.  The IAHC was born in a shouting match
> pressure cooker, with a large supply of vociferous antagonists
> pre-alienated to *any* position the IAHC could take.

  This evaluation is of course your own I take it.  However, I can see
where a Pro-MOUvment (Read Bowl movement), came in a termoltous time
indeed with the DNS discussion's going on at that time.  However the
evaluation that most have noticed is that the IAHC process only served,
through its dictatorial style and lack of openess in many areas,
hightened
the antagonistic attitudes that it might have soothed instead if those
responsible had taken a more Open attitude.
> 
> The choice of a shared registry model, in particular, was guaranteed
> to induce deadly attacks from people who had SERIOUS monopoly profits
> in their eyes.  (I don't believe Nominet had to deal with such
> opponents at all.)

  The choice, or lack there of rather, was not really at issue when
introduced.  It was the fact that lack of Non-shared TLD's being
part of that model that was not allowed or even given consideration,
in any real sense that induced deadly attacks, allong with two
of the 7 TLD's that the IAHC Dec. 19th perposal selected, those being
.WEB and .ARTs, in that these were already known befor selected by
the drafters of the Dec 19th perposal of the IAHC, as already being
used by tow other registries in operation and that Non-shared TLD's
such as these two, would not be allowed to co-exist along with shared
gTLD's to be perposed for entry into the Root by this IAHC perposal.
> 
> The stand on Intellectual Property was a second order issue, and came
> to the fore after the loudest opponents of shared-registries found
> other avenues of attack.

  ANother not compleatly accurate statment Kent.  The Intellectual
property issues were NOT an offshoot of the shared registry model,
rather as a result of issues surrounding who wons a Domain name
and the information there unto partaining and that fact that .web and
.arts were already in use by operational registries.
> 
> "America first" jingoism is a third order issue that developed later,
> and is (with a couple of notable exceptions) largely a tool of people
> fighting about the previous two issues -- the early discussion had very
> much a pro-internationalism bent.

  Agreed that the early discussion had a very pro-international bent,
and still do for the most part.  But as a result of the previous two
reason you state above, catagoricly misrepresented.
> 
> So, if you look at the players, you will discover that almost all of
> the alienated people come from pre-alienated roots, and the
> "confrontational style" of the IAHC was largely a epiphenomenon, not a
> cause.

  Not a direc cause I would agree.  Making the situation worse is
really what the IAHC perposal did.
> 
> --
> Kent Crispin                            "No reason to get excited",
> kent@songbird.com                       the thief he kindly spoke...
> PGP fingerprint:   B1 8B 72 ED 55 21 5E 44  61 F4 58 0F 72 10 65 55
> http://songbird.com/kent/pgp_key.html
> 

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