<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 17/08/2012 21:33, Salanieta T.
Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAJwbTiBJxEhW4tca-dRukWcFCdXoS8HFs2W1SRc-T27G75ZcRg@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"><font face="Verdana"> <br>
<br>
Just think of the scenario when Amazon owns .book, and
mind you, it is to be fully private. Unlike existing
registries like .com etc amazon will not even be obliged
to sell second level domain names under .book in the
public market (protecting the marketplace, huh!). Quite
soon, amazon may change its name, or at least its book
division's name to .book... It will have a right to, since
it owns that particular symbol in a very special way.....
Remember, normal trademark etc law wont allow it to run
its business under the name 'book', because it will be
considered too generic a name, meaning it is pubic
property (those good old times when laws were made to
protect the public!). But with an</font><font
face="Verdana"> expedient routed through the</font><font
face="Verdana"> ICANN- that benefactor of the powerful,
Amazon can run its business under .book, the ownership of
which is 'established, or would certainly get established
over due course of use as everyone will know, of course
.book amazon (and vice versa), are you kidding or what! <br>
<br>
</font></div>
</blockquote>
</div>
This is an excellent point. The At Large community that represent
and look out for the interests of ordinary internet users have
been robustly engaging in discussions and also receiving feedback
and comments from its members on this very same issue and also on
"Amazon's" application of .book. It will also be great if you
could post your comments to the At Large list as I think I have
seen you reply to one of the mailing lists there so that the views
are captured. Membership of At Large is open to all and you can
find out how to join as an Accredited At Large Structure (ALS). In
the Asian Australasian Pacific region, to join the At Large, has
to be through an ALS. It is one things to object here but it is
far more impacting to raise your concerns with ICANN through the
appropriate mechanism process available to the public to comment.
I suspect that you may have done this already and if you have,
then please ignore this comment.<br clear="all">
<div><br>
</div>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
Thanks Sala -- and I note a lot of ICANN bashing is always taking
place outside of ICANN.<br>
Rather than venting about the failings of an organization, I invite
everyone to start working using the tools that this organization is
providing to improve it.<br>
Today, many women and men from around the world are working hard to
improve ICANN by bringing the voice of the Internet user into the
ICANN processes.<br>
Whether it's via the NCUC or via the ALAC, there are never enough
volunteers to engage into all of what is going on simultaneously.<br>
<br>
ICANN works on a multi-stakeholder model. It is an operational
multi-stakeholder model. It is our responsibility to make it work.
Your responsiblity, IGC members. Everyone's responsibility.<br>
So when the US government writes to ICANN that it has not done
enough outreach to let everyone comment, I take it as a failure not
only of ICANN, but of each and everyone of us, who are in the know,
to have informed our local communities.<br>
Because if ICANN does not work, then the multi-stakeholder model
*does not work in practice* and if that's the case, we can just hand
the Internet over to governments & the UN to run, go home &
enjoy our lives, never needing to ever post again on the IGC
Governance list.<br>
<br>
Kind regards,<br>
<br>
Olivier<br>
(in a personal capacity)<br>
</body>
</html>