Greg Skinner said:
>I think you misunderstood the point of my post. I am not arguing that
>"trademark interests" ought to have protection. I was merely
>speculating that they might feel existing law does not offer them
>enough protection.
Although I may have misunderstood, I still say that a group who feels that
existing laws do not offer them enough protection should not then be able
to circumvent that existing law through private corporations given
"trusteeship" over an international resource.
>
>I am not a "trademark interest." I think Kerry should complain to the
>"trademark interests" if he feels that they are abusing the Internet.
Many of us HAVE complained to the "trademark interests." They are not
listening. See, for example, WIPO's latest report. See, for example,
INTA's attempted capture of the IP constituency.
>
>> Irrelevant to ICANN's mandate. ICANN's own web page ...
>> does not say "creates policy for domain name usage" or "corporation
>> formed to make decisions on who gets more protection, commerce or
>> individuals."
>
>Again, you misunderstood my post. I was only pointing out to Kerry
>that ICANN is not the instigator of commerce in domain names. That
>happened long before ICANN showed up.
ICANN is attempting to implement policy to "make the net safe for
e-commerce." Unfortunately, this is being done at the expense of other
intereests.
>
>> As long as people look at the projected limitations on domain name
>> usage and registration as "commerce vs. cybersquatters" you miss the
>> big picture.
>
>Right, but this needs to be said to those people, NOT ME! I just use
>domain names to get access to Internet resources. I don't care what
>they're called -- if IBM was registered as mikki.barry I would still
>use it and not be confused.
It has been said. Unfortunately, they are still not listening.
