Re: [wg-c] voting on TLDs

["Kevin J. Connolly" <CONNOLLK@rspab.com>]

"Milton Mueller" <mueller@syr.edu>  wrote (03/13/00 12:04PM )

>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Kevin J. Connolly"
>
>> Nope.  The #1 reason why the GTLD-MOU tanked was opposition from the
>> trademark community.
>
>Nope. The #1 reason was the US government's lack of...er....comfort at the
>role of the ITU. ICANN was created primarily to avoid having to put these
>matters in the hands of intergovernmental organizations such as ITU.

As you have done before, you simply make it up as you go.  
I was present in the room when Becky Burr and Ira Magaziner 
originally floated, and then refined, the NewCo proposal.  The administration's "discomfort" at the role of the ITU is a fiction, 
created by the organizations that were fronting for the
trademark community when the GTLD-MoU underwent its hatchet 
job.  The relationship between the ITU and the GTLD-MOU was 
handled as a diplomatic manner, and, in the best traditions of 
international relations, a means was found to accommodated all 
parties.  Then the trademark community emerged with an 
agenda which was shamelessly devoted to the destruction of the 
GTLD-MoU and the prevention of new GTLDs ever being added 
to the root.  To continue to foist the "ITU-Discomfort" scenario is to continue to legitimate the greed of the trademark community.

>
>The #2 reason was the refusal of the USG to allow a government contractor
>such as IANA to grab control of valuable taxpayer-funded assets without any
>formal authorization.
>

Oh my numen! This is about the most horrendous thing I've ever 
heard said of Jon Postel (=IANA).  There are many reasons for 
the motto, de mortuis nil nisi bonum. Not the least of these is that 
those who attack the dead cannot be perceived other than as 
cowards.  The only grab of public assets which has taken place 
is the grab of the databases by NSI, which, rather than allow a 
public asset to be held in trust for the public has decided instead 
to break the asset beyond repair.  (Has anyone tried to do useful 
work with the whois databases lately?)

>The trademark theory is an odd one, given the participation of WIPO and INTA
>in the gTLD-MoU, and the fact that gTLD-MoU gave them more power and more
>representation than they have under ICANN.

How fascinating.  Where, in the CORE-POC paradigm, did the 
trademark community have a seat at the table?  Where, in that 
process, was the ability to prevent the growth of the TLD 
namespace forever by imposing operationally-impossible 
constraints?

>
>Trademark interests are one of many stakeholders in the name space. They
>have gotten almost everything they wanted out of ICANN and it's time for
>some other groups to have their needs considered.

Actually, they have that:  there have been no new GTLDs added.  
There will be no significant growth in the TLD namespace for the foreseeable future.  This is not at odds with their objectives, given 
the repeated failure of the ICANN process to address the concerns 
of the trademark community about cybersquatting, free-riding,
and other predation.

**********************************************************************
The information contained in this electronic message is confidential
and is or may be protected by the attorney-client privilege, the work
product doctrine, joint defense privileges, trade secret protections,
and/or other applicable protections from disclosure.  If the reader of
this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified
that any use, dissemination, distribution or reproduction of this com-
munication is strictly prohibited.  If you have received this communi-
cation in error, please immediately notify us by calling our Help Desk
at 212-541-2000 ext.3314, or by e-mail to helpdesk@rspab.com
**********************************************************************