Kerry Miller wrote:
> I believe its RFC 1591 that states that registering a domain name
> confers no legal rights to that name and that any disputes between
> parties over the rights to use a particular name are to be settled
> between the contending parties using existing legal methods. Why
> then should a *technical* administrative body be impelled to step
> into this picture, unless trademark interests are pushing it in order
> to 'externalize' their costs?
I don't know. You would have to ask the trademark interests why
they have pushed for it. Perhaps they felt they needed more
protection.
> Again, ICANN *could add its weight to the obvious way out -- the
> de-emphasis of DN as an advertising/ 'free speech' device,
The emphasis of domain names as an advertising/free speech device did
not start with ICANN -- it started with people who decided to register
names for those purposes. I doubt it will matter if ICANN goes on
such a crusade. The people who want to use domain names in these ways
were around long before ICANN showed up, and will most likely be
around long after ICANN is history.
> and the enhancement of more accurate and contextually richer modes
> of navigation than a single 64-character string -- instead of plowing
> deeper into the mud.
ICANN has nothing to do with this. That's the province of whoever is
designing such systems. My guess is those will experience the same
disputes domain names do now, when those systems mature. Like I
said before, there will always be people around who will try to make
an easy buck if they see an opportunity to do so and there are people
who will pay for the service.
--gregbo
