[ncdnhc-discuss] draft resolution on Intellectual Property and Top-Level Domains
Jefsey Morfin
jefsey at wanadoo.fr
Fri Aug 24 03:28:50 CEST 2001
On 00:07 24/08/01, Anupam Chander said:
>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).
Here I also humbly totally disagree. For various very good reasons!
1. I do not buy the definition creep. Basics in network architecture are
consistency and simplicity. If anytime the Internet has been based
upon RFC 920, the system stability calls for consistency with it
or more general simplicity. Its the entropy principle: complexity
degradation. In human beings it is named wisdom.
2. the main argument used by ICP-3 worshipers is "it has always been
this way". You remark shows this was not.
3. organization TLD have been implemented: this is ".org". No demand
came for moTLDs (partly implemented through ailing Real Names).
4. RFC 920 and als. is the embodiment by Jon Postel in 1988 of the
then naming common practice. You will not make me believe that
they intended to build a lower grade system than my old mine
they had interfaced many times.
I do not recall exactly their problem as I never related directly
with them. We had a techie - may be someone in here may
document - who ran a patch for the ARPA Gateways. I only recall
that I was unhappy with it because they had to go international
sometimes and their sequence could have created a conflict.
Obviously they were English speaking and I was French speaking
so they had changed the order. You should find back the people,
I feel I recall it was for the Royal College in London. And they/we?
put "uk". If you are interested I think I might find back our UK
manager to ask him (Peter Warn). Unless he is here? I just
recently found he one who suggested to add the dots.
But I can swear you that the world naming system has *never* been
hierarchical - it would have been imperialistically absurd. Who would
have been the root of the world, the USA? I went to an IBI conference
in 1978 (the concerned UN agency). I promoted the idea that as our
machines had ... 3 network links, one could go NY, one to Paris and
the last one to Moscow. At least a three rooted space :-)
Obviously this was my naming on our public solution. But with hundred
of thousands of users all through the world, supporting the X.121
standard in 50 countries, interfacing every administration and large
private interconnected systems of the time, interconnecting all the public
data services, operating the international data service of more than 30
PTTs and public operators and part of the State Department
Delegation to the CCITT (ITU/T).
Frankly do you really believe ARPA people would have been permitted
and funded to build something out of the real world and of lesser level?
I doubt it!
The proof is the way RFCs explain the tree. You might remember
that in the mid 80s you could not sell something without a tree.
B-Tree times. Since real life is never rooted except in Adam and Eve
you had empty roots everywhere. Dots. You will see in the RFCs:
this is the "U" in several drafts. Or the dot at the end of the domain
name sequence. The NeuLevel lawyer's "unique authoritative root"
is just that: the empty dot (in real life only emptiness is perfect
or it is divine). Obviously afterward when it came to design BIND the
dot may have blurred. May be people here can document.
But the Naming Space is obviously multi-layered. Nothing to do with
the Internet, just the way real world is.
>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).
You are true. And I can assure it was not "designed" :-) I paid a
tribute a few times ago on the GA to all the people involved. I suppose
I still have it if you want it. It was only to keep quite the Italcable and
Bundespost International Data Service Managers.
The name space has no special value. This not because a lot of
people make you believe something that it is true. Wind has no
value. What has value is on what the wind blows.
> And we need to tread carefully in giving out these valuable
>spaces to the first enterprising person who seeks them.
I am sorry here but I am afraid you did not understand the
way it works and what every RFC is spelling out. You read
Louis Touton too much. But Louis Touton is the guy with the
NeuLevel law suits, the Affilias sunrise, the NSI stock piling,
DoJ watching the Plan B, the $ 100;000 a month paid to
Jones Day, etc... Let get real.
Jon Postel has a very nice formula. He says the DNS is
recursive. In a nutshell this means that in an interconnection
the boss is the one who accepts to interconnect.
Internet is the consensus of its participants to communicate
in using the TCP/IP protocol set under the IP addressing plan
interfaced by the DNS. The boss is the participant. The only
thing he pays for is the IP address and a line. The rest is
its decision. Choice of the protocols, of the softwares, of the
OS, of the speed, of everything. A king in his domain. He
decide of the name of his belongings (3,4,LDs), of the way
one has to call his domain (SLD) and of the domain he wants
to interconnect (TLD). Naming was human privilege - cf. God
and Adam in Genesis, until ICANN.
There is always the need for a King servant and for a
book keeper. The TLD Manager is the Interconnected Kings
servant. Please read RFC 1591: he his the trustee of the
Registrants community. The Registry is just the clerk.
There is no precious names :-) There is an expensive make
believe which brings a lot of undue money to the clerks.
NSI people were cute enough in allying with IP people to
make believe the DNs had a value. They have none. Zip.
DNs are public stuff. Like "mount McKinley" or "Eiffel
Tower". Before the war a guy sold the Eiffel Tower to a
Yankee: "La Fayette nous voilà" the revenge is that the
Yankees sold the French their own names. Great!
Now, it is true that running the DNS has a cost.And that
making paying the DNs is a quick and dirty solution.
But it is not the best as we see it every day. At least
the way we do it today (it does not respect the user's
rights).
More and more the IP people and TM owners understand
there is something wrong. Today thousands and thousands
of people are using .shop DNs. Great. But where is the TM
protection there? I have asked the WIPO if they wanted to
consider an UDRP for my TLDs. Why not, I am open minded.
I asked Stuart.
They never responded.... yet. :-)
Jefsey
> -----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
More information about the Ncuc-discuss
mailing list