time for icann to go?

[flex]

http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/2002/07/02/gilmore/index.html?x

:embarrass

 

[beatz]

So true.
Wow - i think this is the first time i see someone telling like it is.

"..ICANN and domain name policy has been perverted from the start by the machinations of trademark interests. Actual trademark law gives zero power to cancel or seize domain names, prevent their issuance, etc. Actual trademark law lets hundreds of people use the same name, both in different jurisdictions, and for different kinds of trades (e.g., computers vs. soap vs. ships). Trademark owners only have power over others when the others misrepresent themselves as the trademark owner. "

I always wondered how come TM law should equal "Domain law"

"I think the international reaction on U.S. Internet dominance is a lot like the international reaction to many U.S. topics: They wish the U.S. didn't try to treat the world as the U.S.'s own private playground, but then again it's not wise to piss off the world's only superpower. So they demur politely while fuming privately."

Can't agree more.Being from germany it's really annoying to see how US seems to think they kinda own the internet.

The only thing i don't agree with John Gilmore is about the "thousands of tlds" suggestion.But that's because i'm a speculator
Anyway,excellent article.

 

[fizz]

A great read. I was also intrigued with the history surrounding the company SAIC’s purchase for $3 million of Network Solutions, the string-pulling to maintain its monopoly, and the eventual sale of NSI for $21 billion (or 7,000 times its initial purchase price).