[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Competition; was Re: [Membership] ICANN: The Issue of Membership---
Greg Skinner a écrit:
> Under the current policy, registrants do not have domain names "under
> their control," regardless of whether they are administered through
> NSI, through the ISP, or through some other domain name hosting
How is that? Aside from the dispute policy, NSI won't restrict my use of my
domain name, so far as I know.
> However, using domain names under the control of the ISP, or some
> other domain name hosting service, does not involve NSI in any
> potential lawsuits that might arise from name conflicts.
That's true. But it involves the domain name user in a relationship with the
ISP that isn't to the users advantage, especially when he or she is paying a
small amount of money to the ISP. In effect, the website belongs to the ISP
and not the user. It can't be moved to another ISP. Anyone who's had both
types of websites knows exactly what I'm talking about.
> About the only way registrants might have such control is for everyone
> on Earth to be able to set up their own registry, and publish their
> names to every other registry. The current technology doesn't support
Maybe not, but it has until now, and probably will for the immediate future,
support domain names and even unique IP addresses for all comers.
Technologically this is supported. It is only the selfishness of economic
interests like the trademark people that wants to restrict this freedom. For
ISPs, it may be economically advantageous to have clients' websites
addressed through a domain name that the ISP rather than the client has
registered, but it constrains the freedom of choice of the website owner
who, in effect, doesn't own the website but is only leasing it from the
owner of the domain name that it's addressed under. You know this very well.
> I would hope that we could have some kind of reasoned discussion about
That's what I am trying to do.
> rather than you making insinuating and inflammatory knee-jerk
> responses to me.
I can't see where I've done that, unless you mean my asking if you would
decide who gets domain names. But isn't that the next step in the argument
for restricting the registration of domain names? Everyone who proposes that
does so because they have an idea of whom to restrict them to. You do. And
so the question was perfectly apt.
> But regardless of the fact that there exist practical
> limitations on putting a chicken in every pot, the chicken breeders
> are obligated to do it anyway, otherwise they will be considered evil,
> greedy, selfish minions of the forces designed to starve the world's
I never suggested that ISPs are responsible for any dirth of IP addresses or
domain names, which does not in any case exist at the present time. I am
aware of the routing exigencies that tend to require a limited use of IP
addresses; however, that fortunately doesn't require a limitation on the
proliferation of SLDs. So the analogy with chickens isn't very useful.
No one's suggesting ISPs are evil. They just argue for what's best for them,
like everyone else. What's best for us users is to have our own domain names
and thus be able to change ISPs when they won't or can't provide us the
services we want. This is elemental free-market economics, and I can't see
that it really needs any argumentation. I wouldn't bother to reply to you,
except that your arguments play right into the hands of the trademark
people, who want domain names only for themselves.