At 04:08 PM 8/18/99 -0400, you wrote: >Then we are in agreement that the WIPO/WG-A proposals Should Not Be Adopted >In Their Full Form By ICANN In Santiago! > >Can someone write this up for the GA and post it to the UDRP*? Without >comments, and particularly from the GA -- and the IDNO -- this WILL pass. > >(In fact, WIPO is counting on its passage and has already met with registrars >here in DC to work on how to implement these not-yet-adopted proposals.) > >Can we stop this train? Only when we recognize that the USG wish (?) to "privatize" the Internet has in fact insidiously become "to commercialize." And that even the most vehement critics of NSI, ICANN or whoever have already fallen into the trap of babbling about "e-commerce" and the like, while the capture train rolls on. Ronda Hauben is perfectly correct in pointing out that the very worst kind of organizational structure imaginable -- the uncontrolled, state-defined, nonprofit corporation with no identifiable shareholders and hence no outside control -- was chosen. The proper organizational entity would have been an association (which may be under such names as "society" -- The American Chemical Society -- or "association" -- the AAAS) or some such structure that would be answerable when exorbitant salaries are paid, heavy duty corporations arrive with check book in hand, the playing field is tilted in favor of guess who, the general public (particularly the individual and non-commercial domain name holders) can't be heard, NSI's lap dog Bliley runs amok (he's not doing that indicated public any favors, you know), etc., etc. Bill Lovell > >Kathryn Kleiman >ACM-IGC >*(uniform dispute resolution policy -- a euphamism for mandatory arbitration >that binds domain name owners and not trademark owners) >> >> I agree completely with you here Kathy as I believe most small eBusiness >> people do or would if they were aware. >> >> My only difference with Kathy here is that I believe that the WIPO Ch.3 >> Cybersquatting/Mandatory Arbitration procedures back to DNSO GA >> for consideration rather than the NC or pNC in this case. This issue >> is to broad reaching for just the "NC" or the pNC to make a determination >> or final decision on... >
