Re: <nettime> US Bill against "Cybersquatting" passed

[t byfield <tbyfield@panix.com>]

stalder@fis.utoronto.ca (Wed 11/10/99 at 02:41 PM -0500):

> This is vintage politics.  A major issue is buried in a bill that has
> nothing to do with it but is unlikely to be vetoed because then the whole
> bill would have to be vetoed.  This case it's the a piece of legislation
> lobbied by the Motion Pictures Association that gives trademark holders
> more right to sue alleged "cybersquatters". And the vehicle in which this
> law was passed was the "Satellite Viewers Act" which nominally regulates
> cable vs. satellite TV issues.  The has just passed the Senate and now
> goes on to the House.

<.....>
 
> How does that affect ICANN now? Any comments? 

suffice it to say that the only non-ICANN board member who 
explicitly and wholeheartedly endorsed ICANN's various and
sundry 'achievements' at its last meeting was the lobbyist
for the MPAA, tod cohen. the good news, as it were: i over-
heard him saying that the MPAA wasn't going to muck around
with trademarks in *this* congressional session, lest they
hinder this cybersquatting bill's passage through congress.
so next years we can expect more of this shit on the trade-
mark front.

ICANN, according to esther dyson, is 'trying to work at in-
ternet speed.' not on any issue that would vex 'intellectu-
al propertyholders,' like more gTLDs, of course. but ICANN
can move mighty fast when it comes to tightening the noose 
around anyone who strays in the way of the IP juggernaut.

ICANN's 'uniform dispute resolution policy' *seriously* ex-
pands the (ready for this?) IAHC-gTLD-MoU-CORE gang's more 
benign aim of establishing what they called 'equitable dis-
pute resolution mechanisms.' 

note well: ICANN has aggressively pursued a program of lim-
iting the rights of independents, but it is absolutely sil-
ent when it comes to national legislation that's even more
agressive. no doubt, ICANNers would argue that it would be
totally inappropriate for it to meddle with 'internal' pol-
itical matters. but in realms not dignified by pomp or cir-
cumstance of 'politics,' that's not meddling--it is, ICANN
claims, 'protecting the stability of the internet.'

so, to answer your question, this legilsation won't affect 
ICANN at all. instead, what it will do is give 'intellectu-
al propertyholders' the opportunity to shop for venues. if
ICANN's UDRP will serve them, they'll use that; but, if it
doesn't, they'll use jucicial mechanisms to accomplish the
same end.

cheers [not!],
t

#  distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission
#  <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
#  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
#  more info: majordomo@bbs.thing.net and "info nettime-l" in the msg body
#  archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime@bbs.thing.net