[governance] new gTLDs
parminder
parminder at itforchange.net
Sat Aug 18 02:36:18 EDT 2012
Milton
You know that this a debate over higher level principles/issues, so we
can have a discussion on them if you want. Meanwhile, your smart alec
stuff serves little purpose. Neither, the rhetoric of attacking
positions that make you feel good, which positions you know I never
hold; like, your claim that I am on the side of 'people who want to
control and regulate the use of common word in order to ensure that they
are used "properly" or "fairly""
When, if I am saying anything at all, I am saying that common words
should be allowed to be freely used by all, and not inappropriately
pushed into private domains, which is a form of 'control' over the use
of those 'common words'. Therefore, who is on the side of control over
common words (and implicated FoE) and who against is perhaps opposite of
how you would want to show it to be.
Even more ludicrous is your claim that "It is only a matter of time
before you join the trademark lobby in their never ending quest
to ensure that politically approved true rights holders are allowed to
use specific words in specific ways "
When you know that what I am trying to say, and also my general
politics, is quite the opposite. The main burden of my original
proposition is, in fact, that (replacing 'politically' in your
statement with 'commercially', while it is obvious that you see 'red'
with anything political, while all kinds of commercial controls simply
pass you by.)
with the new gltd process "'commercially' approved true rights
holders are allowed to use specific words in specific ways" like the
word .book......
(Yes, .book will be used as a word, dot book, connoting that in the
online environment 'this' is exclusively what book is. A major, unfair
and unnecessary advantage to any private actor. )
Obviously, you are allowing your rhetoric to get better of you.....
Anyway, I will point to the larger principles and socio-economic and
political issues that are behind our present discussion in a separate
email...parminder
On Friday 17 August 2012 11:30 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote:
>
> *From:*governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org
> [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] *On Behalf Of *parminder
>
> I am honoured to agree with the US Congressional judicial committee
>
> ØI knew this would happen, eventually. Good for Parminder for being
> consistent…..even if consistently wrong.
>
> ØFor a different perspective, see
> http://www.internetgovernance.org/2012/08/16/us-congress-joins-saudi-arabia-in-net-censorship-extravaganza/
>
>
> I especially agree that ICANN has done practically nothing to get
> *informed* comments from outside the largely compliant ICANN community
> on an issue that implicates just everyone, who deals with language and
> ideas that is.
>
> ØI think we've gotten 13 years of comments many of them quite well
> informed,
>
> Øand anyway how is ICANN supposed to control the intelligence or
> informational
>
> Ølevels of the people who write into an open, public comment board?
>
> ØHave you looked over the comments on TLD applications? they are
> astoundingly diverse.
>
> ØMost of them are stupid, but they are not from the ICANN stalwarts
>
> ØThat's democracy, bub
>
>
> By it I mean a public-place from where our commonly owned words (with
> all the cultural significances they hold) like love, kid, book, school
> etc cannot be plucked out and handed over to some business houses as
> private property.
>
> ØThis is where you are not thinking very deeply. If these words are
> indeed 'commonly owned' they can be appropriated and used by anyone.
>
> ØSince domain name registrations must be exclusive, and since your
> claim to a dns registration of a common word is as good as mine, it is
> just a matter of first come first served.
>
> ØIt is the people who want to control and regulate the use of common
> words
>
> Ø- in order to ensure that they are used "properly" or "fairly" -
>
> Øwho actually would usher in a crippling political battle over who has
> the right to the name, and how it canbe used
>
> Øwhich would stifle the development of the name space. I am still
> waiting for you Parminder to
>
> Øget acquainted with the idea of "permissionless innovation," which is
> why the Internet flourished.
>
> ØYou want people to ask for permission and impose collective
> regulation before they can use the word 'book'.
>
> ØI say to hell with that.
>
> ØIt is only a matter of time before you join the trademark lobby in
> their never ending quest to
>
> Øensure that politically approved true rights holders are allowed to
> use specific words in specific ways
>
>
> When 'trademarks' allow exclusive rights over some words to some
> private parties in very clearly limited contexts, and with so many
> pre-conditions, caveats etc, how can a private body simply hand over
> the *globally* exclusive use of generic words, with no trademark claim
> to them either, to private parties just on the highest bid !!?
>
> Øthey are not handing over the right to globally exclusive use of the
> word.
>
> ØThey are handing over the right to globally exclusive use of a
> specific character string as a top level domain
>
> ØYou can use the word 'book' all you like. There, I just did it: book,
> book, book.
>
> ØI can name my website http://www.syr.edu/book/
>
> ØI can paint "book" on the side of my car, or tattoo it on my forehead
>
> ØI can try to register 'book' in any of the hundreds of new TLDs that
> will exist if you and the TM lobby don't stop it
>
> ØI can open a book store, online or offline, and attract google-driven
> searches on the word 'book' there if people link to it
>
> ØEtc.
>
> ØEtc.
>
> Just think of the scenario when Amazon owns .book,
>
> ØCheck this out: www.book.com <http://www.book.com>
>
> ØCheck this out: http://www.book.co.uk/
>
> Ø
>
> 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 expedient routed
> through the 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 is amazon (and vice versa), are you kidding or
> what!
>
> I am sure with some proven use and exclusivity, trademark authorities
> will also be compliant... As the world, especially in the use of
> language, goes mostly digital, we hand over our common property, the
> idea and the word, 'book', to a private company.... and then it is the
> turn of 'kid', 'love', 'cloud', .baby, .book, .eat, .family, .film,
> .home, .movie, .music, .search, .beauty, .school................
> I am completely lost as to what public interest does all this serve?
> Isnt ICANN there to serve public interest! Why couldnt we stick to
> relatively meaningless three alphabet gtlds like .com, .org and such,
> and, being most important, making it incumbent upon the registries to
> sell second level domains in the open market on a non discriminatory
> basis?? Why has ICANN taken upon itself to further privatise anything
> and everything that conceivably can be privatised and perpetual rents
> extracted for the benefit of the most powerful, in the true spirit of
> the resplendent neoliberal march.
>
> I really hope those outside the wunderworld of ICANN would take this
> issue up in the right earnest.. I suspect, the storm would start
> brewing soon. I cant see how ICANN, and its compliant ICANN community,
> will be allowed to get away with this absolute loot of our common
> cultural heritage. I think this time ICANN has bitten off too much.....
>
>
> parminder
>
> On Wednesday 15 August 2012 02:39 PM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote:
>
>
>
> FYI
>
>
>
> http://www.leahy.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/8-7-12%20Letter%20from%20Senate%20and%20House%20Judiciary%20Committees.pdf
>
>
>
> wolfgang
>
>
>
> -->
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20120818/2bad28a7/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
For all other list information and functions, see:
http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
http://www.igcaucus.org/
Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
More information about the Governance
mailing list