 |
|
 Legend F = Free - News and Features articles (see Registered Users below.) P = Premium - Unlimited site access including contents listed under Additional Services for Premium Access Subscribers. About ICB - Company Bio - Press - Privacy & Security - Site Map - Testimonials Registered Users News - Headlines - News Briefs - Reference Library Features - .COM Miscellany - 1-800 Domain Names - 800 Miscellany - 800 Provider Directory - Ask the Expert - Editorials - Frost & Sullivan - Industry Links - Search Additional Services for Premium Access Subscribers - 888 Replication Specs - Behind the Scenes - Industry Insights - Law Library - Regulatory Room - Research Review Contact Us - Advertising - Feedback/Questions - ICB Classifieds - ICB Consultancy - Reciprocal Links Account Information - Change/Update Info - Account Activity - Subscribe/Upgrade - Renew Subscription |
The internet is a territory - cyberspace - which until now, has functioned quite well on its own, with no "governance" needed, friendly or otherwise. We now face a coup, 21st century-style imperialism: quite literally, a corporate sponsored government takeover. It turns the cyberspace territory as we've known it, into cyberHQ - cyber corporate headquarters. Attacking on two fronts, the global trademark lobby is bulldozing its supremacy agenda through ICANN, an eager participant, and the U.S. Congress, itself no stranger to "bending over" for corporate cause. The result: You no longer own your domain name. That bears repeating. You no longer own your domain name. In fact, putting the contract cart before the NSI/Commerce Agreement horse, your current .com (or .net or .org) domain name registration agreement says, "[You] agree that Network Solutions shall have the right in its sole discretion to revoke, suspend, transfer or otherwise modify [your] domain name registration..." This is ultimate revocation: no trademark dispute or other third party challenge needed. How did this occur? The corporate/trademark lobby has long leaned on Network Solutions to grant trademark supremacist demands over Joe Q. Netizen's domain name rights, and the company caved, sneaking the seizure policy language into its domain name contract under the "dispute resolution" section (see http://www.networksolutions.com/legal/dispute-policy.html), even though it's not dispute or challenge related. ICANN, financially and politically run by the global trademark lobby, requires seizure policy language via the Registrar Accreditation Agreement, in every .com, .net and .org agreement. If you do not agree to the possible at-will seizure and revocation of your domain name, you simply cannot have one. As noted above, the process-challenged ICANN has already instituted and implemented these contracts, despite the "tentative" status of its agreements with Network Solutions and the Commerce Department. So the ICANN flag waves over the land. Like countless conquered peoples throughout history, the netizen land owner is blind sided, suddenly relegated to tenuous tenancy. Though no dearth of criticism, you'd be hard pressed to find public notice or reaction. Such is the public relations and tactical savvy of global corporate machine running ICANN. "Rather than promote the Internet's evolution, your organization's policies actually may jeopardize the continued stability of the underlying systems that permit millions of people to use, enjoy and transact business on the Internet," Rep. Tom Bliley (R-VA), chairman of the House Commerce Committee, wrote to ICANN interim Chairwoman Esther Dyson earlier this year. "ICANN has constructed an edifice of Byzantine complexity (that will) allow a handful of huge corporations to dominate the formerly decentralized entrepreneurial workings of the Internet," charges the Cook Report, a newsletter from cyber-gadfly Gordon Cook. Ralph Nader attacks ICANN for a "lack of openness, a lack of accountability and a lack of membership." Taking its lead from ICANN's trademark-supremacist Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy, the "Trademark Cyberpiracy Act" (H.R. 3028) legislation is moving with lightening speed through Congress, even though it "has serious defects that will hurt many users of the Internet, including individuals, small businesses and noncommercial organizations. H.R. 3028 demonstrates a strong bias toward large, established corporations by expanding the rights of trademark owners far beyond any given under existing law." In fact, Speaker J. Dennis Hastert, U. S. House of Representatives, has been alerted that, "The bill creates draconian statutory penalties even if no damages are shown. The penalty provision enriches trademark owners at the expense of e-commerce experimentation, entrepreneurship, and the creative outreach efforts of commercial and noncommercial organizations." This is not "cybersquatter" rhetoric: the petitions' signatories are among the internet's most notable technical, policy and trademark elite:
Dr. Barbara Simons, President Yet JohnQPublic.com remains errantly oblivious, and the trademark tanks roll on, now demanding ICANN's Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy be beefed up even more, to match the new flawed legislation. Note AOL's comments, posted on October 15, the ink not yet dry on H.R. 3028: http://www.icann.org/comments-mail/comment-udrp/current/msg00110.html Sections 4(b) and 4(c) generally: The language used in these sections... varies somewhat from the anti-cybersquatting bills proposed by the United States Senate and House of Representatives. ICANN should be cognizant of developments under the laws of the United States and other jurisdictions in this area, and revisit and revise these concepts ... Look at the qualifications and agenda of those who fight to keep the internet free from any supremacy governance, both the names listed above, and those quoted below:
http://www.icann.org/comments-mail/comment-udrp/current/msg00012.html Now look at the qualifications and agenda of those who support ICANN's governance, found below. http://www.icann.org/comments-mail/comment-udrp/current/msg00089.html Who and what is "right", and who and what is "wrong" relative to internet functionality or public interest, is crystal clear. But functionality and public interest are not at stake. Entitlement is. There is a searingly-fabulous British comic named Eddie Izzard (HBO Comedy Specials: EDDIE IZZARD: DRESS TO KILL)... ... part of his routine discusses how white men historically lay claim to "discovering" already-inhabited lands, merely because no flag is evident ... ie, no existing flag = no entitled inhabitants ... the "discoverers" spear their flag into the soil, and "stake" their claim ... On an individual level this plays out as what''''s known in certain circles as "skin privilege", another concept thread evidenced in the comments of trademark owners' representatives at http://www.icann.org/udrp/udrp.htm ... Not only is an elevated privilege assumed, but a distinct lack of any privilege for anyone else, as well ... The year is 2002, and the century's first great war is over. The corporate sponsored takeover of Joe Q. Netizen's "unclaimed" territories and trade routes is complete. The dust is settling over a shiny new global corporate-centric, trademark supremacist internet landscape. Welcome - if you're among the privileged few - to
CyberHQ. |
|
|
[ Previous 5 Sites | Previous | Next | Next 5 Sites | Random Site | List Sites ]
"ICB Toll Free News" proudly online since 1995. Copyright © 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, and 2001 ICB. Inc. All rights reserved. "ICB Toll Free News" is a trademark of ICB Inc. ICB Inc. assumes no responsibilities for use or misuse of information contained herein and / or accessible via this site. ICB Inc. cannot and does not vouch for the accuracy and / or usability of any of the contained or linked-to information, and assumes no responsibilities for any errors or omissions. |