[ncdnhc-discuss] draft resolution on Intellectual Property and Top-Level Domains

[Anupam Chander]

Jeff,

I assure you that I've read carefully RFC 920, and *every* other historical
RFC regarding domain names, including the RFCs that talked only about
"hosts" and "message headers."  I agree with you that Postel would have
preferred, like many in this constituency, thousands of TLDs.

I humbly disagree with that view, and, more importantly, do not feel that we
are bound by those early intentions (which, in my opinion, were never
realized).  We need to recognize the domain name space for the hugely
valuable assets it now entails-a value beyond the expectations of its
designers (if you can find evidence to the contrary, I would be greatly
interested).  And we need to tread carefully in giving out these valuable
spaces to the first enterprising person who seeks them.

Best,
Anupam Chander


 -----Original Message-----
From: 	discuss-admin at icann-ncc.org [mailto:discuss-admin at icann-ncc.org]  On
Behalf Of Jefsey Morfin
Sent:	Thursday, August 23, 2001 3:06 AM
To:	discuss at icann-ncc.org
Subject:	RE: [ncdnhc-discuss] draft resolution on Intellectual Property and
Top-Level Domains

Dear Anupam,
Your remark is of great interest. There are 1.200.000 non profit TLDs ready.
Under the TLD Trust againstTLD squatting. Let me explain.

On 22:37 22/08/01, Anupam Chander said:

>Thanks to Chris for some thought-provoking resolutions.
>
>I write to note my disagreement with the part of the resolution on IP and
>TLDs that suggests that ICANN should approve all new technically-acceptable
>TLD applications.  That proposal is, in my opinion, terribly misguided.
The
>last thing that the non-commercial constituency should do is seek to help
>corporations with their attempts to gain (for free) valuable charters to
>domain name space.  If anything, we should support the efforts of
>not-for-profit entities to gain new TLDs.


I would like to suggest a carefull reading of the RFC 920 by Jon Postel.
This RFC decribes what domain names are: the name of a physical property of
the domain owner: machines, installations, services, etc... It explains
that a TLD is the common name of a domain of domains that domain owner join
freely.

Among TLDs there are some special TLDs:

- legacy TLDs - .com, .net etc...

- ccTLDs (at that time they were not yet implemented and he explains that
they will be implemented in using the 2 letters ISO list - when I had
implemented the international names of the public data services by PTTs and
Telcos back in 19878 I had retained the same structure  but with 3 letters
ISO list)

and I would say "standard" TLDs : the moTLDs (multiorganizations).

Jon Postel describes in this RFC the technical conditions for a moTLD. They
have been used in RFC 1591 too. He explains that moTLD should be accepted
when the concerned registrants' domains are not forming a single entity -
such the computers on a campus - and are expected to be more that 500, what
is the case today for most of the TLD projects.

He explains that at this time - ccTLDs did not yet occured - there was none
of them but he fully descibes the way the should be formed and implemented
and registered by the NIC, documenting the case of the hypothetical
".csnet".

What is of the utmost interest for the NCDNHC is that he considers that
such moTLDs should be (real) domain owners associations or consortia. That
means that the TLD Manager organisation would be
the non-profit organization of its registrants (which can then subcontract
parts of its tasks).

Strictly abiding by the indications of of Jon Postel's RFC 920 I formed two
consortia: ".sys", ".wiz" with innovative yet technically simple projects.
(.SYS was intended to register Domain Name structures like
http://ncdnhc-*.sys permitting free validation of hundreds of SLDs without
risk of cybersquatting. .WIZ was to study AI domain names).

I documented .sys on the ICANN site before Yokohama (proposition nr. 3) and
mailed Mike Roberts proposing him to give the concept and the work away to
the Internet Global Community. Interestingly
he responded that I was to pay $ 50.000 before making the donation and if I
wanted "to enter the International Domain Name business" I was to be
prepared to sepnd much more and to call on the
support of very skilled international lawyers.

As this was not my vision of the Internet it lead me to prepare my own
value added root. I worked
on the legal consortium concept and I am today supporting the "CINIC:
common interest Network Information Center/Consortium" concept (there may
be obviously many others). Under that concept the comon "domain" of the
domain owners is a real interest into something like trade, region, city,
culture, church, etc. and the TLD is only a by-product, some kind of common
flag for the Members on the Internet.  This concept is very much accepted.

It leads to some intersting considerations:

- what is of interest is not the domain name but the real domain. i.e. the
site, the ftp acccess, the mails, the webmaster office and computers, the
content. Such a domain may be accessed through several domain names
belonging to several TLDs (aliases, TLD aliases, multilangual SLD/TLDs).
One my belong to diffrent associations and have his site under different
flags.

This point is of the utmost importance for IP protection. Waht is to be
protected is the product not the "case", as in normal life. With millions
of TLDs IP protection would be a nightmare for IP holders. This is no
problem if IP protection is maintained where it belongs: on the product,
the site, the service to be protected. Laws, Trade agreements, TL treaties
fully protect them.

- the TLD is part of the Membership to an association or to a consortium.
The domain name is granted with the Membership (it is then a Member Name).
UDRP cannot apply the same way. The decision is by the Membership
commission. An IP holder cannot intrude in a community by Court decision).
Member names are not necessarily on a first come first served basis.

- the Membership information are the property of the community and of the
Member. They have full rights not to disclose it. The only information most
of the CINICs are ready to disclose is the name and the e-mail of their
President. This is normal association practice and right.

- the name of a domain comes with the domain, the name of a Member with the
Member. You do not lose your name if no one calls you. So in most the case
the domain names are supposed to last as long as the domain. No renewal. In
many contries yearly Membership fee is a legal due until you quit. The
annual Membership fees will cover - among other things - the DN costs.

- several CINICs projects intend to give their Registrant Members many
other rights, like controlling themselves their DNS data. But also access
to advantages negotiated or organized for the whole Membership. This may
cover Internet aspects, but it may cover common advertizing, Member ties,
common showroons in trade shows, etc..

The first problem of the CINIC is the asbence of  the RFC 920 decribed NIC
- the ICANN refusing to play that IANA function. They had to get access to
a root and to organize the Name Space until the ICANN resumes its duties in
that area.

This is why I worte and make progressively accepted among the open internet
arena the "Root and TLD Best Practices". This RT/BP strictly conforms to
the RFC 920, RFC 1591, IANA constant practice, proposed ccTLD Best
Practices. It defines among others the TLD criteria to fight the TLD
squatting.

I obvsiouly proposed Vint Cerf and Stuart Lynn to dig into this and find an
agreement before too many confusion arises. They are obviously conerned by
TLD squatting: they believe that the ICP-3 will protect  them. To the
countray it shows they do not want to be concerned leaving others to take
the lead and acquire defacto rights.

ICP-3 acknowledges experiments like these, acknowledges their legitimacy
but does not grant them any rights as far as the ICANN is concerned. And
then? What we have to understand is that the ICANN has no legal right and
therefore seeks contractual rights, clumsily trying to force them through
its actions under the DoC umbrella.

The problem is that Value Added Root projects like mine cannot stay
projects for ever and that the time windows for easy cooperation is
elapsing (IMHO until the end of the year) while commercial ventures are
springing around. Treating them as marginal is an error. They are today
still small and manageable, but they are leaks in the ICP-3 dam. They are
going to blow that dam. And then the situation will be unbearable.

Our mission is to try to develop projects like CINICs and give them a home
as project. See how they might develop and propose a reasonable registry
system. A new TLD as Linux people - hardly uncompetent people in DNS
matters - costs $20 to the ICANN ($10 to open the enveloppe - $10 to renter
100 characters in an ASCII file). It does not represents $ 50.000.  $
50.000 is the yearly cost of a value added root by non-profit organizations.

Today there are 2 TLDs on the open Internet for the Australian Aborignes.
Please tell me who is hurt, which huge commercial interest is affected? But
if ICANN continue to oppose instead of fostering a cooperation with the
ccTLDs. There more aborigenes tyhan BoD Members and Staff: they will
obviously  win as Chinese did.

The entire system will then be unstabilized. Not technically but
commercially. .com users will be confused, not aborgines users.

My 2 cents. Sorry for having been long.
Jefsey Morfin


_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
Discuss at icann-ncc.org
http://www.icann-ncc.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss