[Comment-Ip] Re: [IFWP] ICANN and WIPO in Berlin

["Richard J. Sexton" <richard@sexton.com>]

At 07:26 AM 5/7/99 -0400, Esther Dyson wrote:
>Thanks for your comments.  AS noted, we have not yet decided what we will
>do. It indeed depends on public comments, among other things. But aside from
>our process, do you have any comments on the substance of the WIPO report?
>We would welcome those.
>
>Esther

Sure. As you read it Esther, ask yourself "does it give rights greater than
than they already are given by law". If it does, round file it.

Lets take a quick look at whats happened in the last 4/5 years. WHen
NSI started charging  a hige discussion broke out on domain-policy@internic.net
wjich quickly moved over to newdom@iiia.org. It was fractious, to be sure
but after being told by Postel to go ahead and deploy experimental registries
competition for thge NSI registry seemed at hand. Then Eugene severely pissed
off Don Heath at Harvard and Don dragged the ITU, WIPO and big business in
as allies.

We have no idea what WIPO did behind the scnes, they certainly never participated
in any discussion on the net, although the ITU was more oevrt:
http://www.iahc.org/iahc-discuss/02675.html

Things got real ugly and the USG stepped in and produced the green paper
which really doled out concessions evenly: 5 new tlds right away and WIPO
gets to make a report.

Between that and the white paper, this got changed to no new tlds and
WIPO makes a report.

That WIPO was singled out and allowed to make comments in a way
not grante dany other group is just not right. Anybody anytime
could have participated in the debate on new top level domains,
WIPO chose not to and used it's considerable influence to get
this concession.

Now, I don't know the percentage of "trademark holders that
have been extorted by speculators" [1] vs. "domain name holders
that have been bullied and wrongs by trademark holders" but it
looks about even from what I've seen. And at the end of the
day trademark olders have had, have and will always have the
courts.

Asking WIPO to comment on domain name development is akin to 
asking convicted pedophiles if they favour repealing sex laws.

Or to put it another way would it make any sense for DNS engineers
have special input to a new hyothetical global tradmark system
and hold that process up for 4-5 years ?

No ? Then why is the reverse true?

Overall I have to say that the Internet process of development - 
an autonomous collaboratibe collective that eschews money worked
great and has served us very well, but only as long as people
didn't notice we were doing it. As soon as the lawyers and big
buiness figured out what was going on the tires screeched and
things just halted.

People are *horrified* with the WIPO report and no compromise can
include such onerous provisions and if you want ICANN to fail
immediately then endorse the WIPO plan by all means.

We're all hoping you'll defer it to the DNSO who can themselves
tell WIPO why they're wrong.






[1] Which happens off the net too. If you trademark Coke in Australia
before the Atlanta soft drink company gets there and does it, you
own the name.


--
richard@dns.list    sexton@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
"Those who give up a little freedom for a little security
will not have, nor do they deserve, either one"
               --Thomas Jefferson