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

[Jefsey Morfin]

Dear Danny and Derek,
Internet is the consensus of its participants to use the TCP/IP protocol 
set under IP addresses interfaced by the DNS system.  So, Internet is by 
definition what Derek names a "chaos". To limit this chaos its three 
components - Protocols, IP and DNS TLDs - need the help of a registry.

Two usual possibilities to set-up and manage such registries:
- either an unique non-profit registry organized by and accountable to the 
global Internet community
- or commercial ventures sharing that mission on a competitive basis for 
lower rates and better technical services.

By a legal twist Joe Sims has managed a non-profit corporation owned by - 
and therefore accountable to - no one. Let not be naive, as every 
corporation by its own, ICANN strives for survival, stability and expansion 
- but its (i.e) Staff, contractors (Jones Days) and partners (NSI) own ones 
not the Internet ones.

This is why one can say there are three Internet versions today: the 
e-legal version by Louis Touton and Joe Sims, the commercial one by 
VeriSign/GIP and the real one by the participants.

Now, Internet is not a network. It is the interstice between participant 
networks and systems. This is something Joe and Louis have not understood 
when creating a single point of authoritative failure in a totally 
distributed system.

This means that if ICANN and/or NSI over play their role they will create 
more tensions than they ease. As no one needs them to use and develop the 
Internet it is to bet that participants will favor innovation and their 
self-interest. This is an autoregulation phenomena. People usually do not 
like the solutions proposed by Derek.

So, if you really think they are of use, you have to find a good way to 
enforce them: I doubt the ICANN is going to be good enough for a long.

Now, regarding Derek's concerns, they are based upon the assumption that 
one could "own" things on the internet and that entreprises should be 
limited because they may result into advantages for some. Do you own 
customers? limiting business, by which authority? Thinking that ICANN could 
regulate  does not work. ICANN has no other legitimacy than being a common 
house keeper. Would you keep long in your family an house keeper who would 
like to direct the life of your family?

Jefsey



At 07:38 27/08/01, Dany Vandromme wrote:
>I agree with Derek Conant remarks below.
>The resolution proposal seems to me just naive.
>Dany
>
>Derek Conant wrote:
> >
> > To suggest that ICANN should not introduce any further restrictions on
> > the registration of new TLDs based on their connection with trademarks,
> > and that ICANN should approve all new Top-Level Domain applications that
> > can meet fair and reasonable technical criteria, is a broad and unclear
> > statement and request that is impossible for ICANN to implement without
> > chaos.
> >
> > Is this a play to qualify grant moneys and funding, or what?  Is the
> > NCDNHC coming up with a resolution here just to say it came up with
> > one?  It is disappointing to see such a group of academics ignore the
> > basic fundamentals as to why such a resolution is unreasonable and
> > impossible for ICANN to implement without chaos.  The resolution does
> > not appear to make any sense.
> >
> > For example, let's start with 3 basics issues that the NCDNHC resolution
> > does not realize:
> >
> >       1.  What does ICANN do with multiple new TLD applications for
> > different applicants applying for the same new TLD?
> >
> >       2.  What does ICANN do with new TLD applications concerning TLD
> > terms related to foreign languages and the multilingual issues?
> >
> >       3.  What does ICANN do with applicants who appear to be attempting
> > to capture certain terms through their new TLD applications?  This is a
> > significant concern because I do not believe that private Internet users
> > and non-profit groups want a TLD applicant or any other single body
> > dictating the definition, use and standards concerning the use of terms
> > that may encompass education, legal, medical, travel, freedom, .etc
> > industries and interests.
> >
> > The problem appears more complicated than the NCDNHC resolution
> > proposed.  I don't believe that the Non-Commercial Constituency
> > Resolution on Intellectual Property and New Top-Level Domains can be
> > made as simple as set forth.  And it seems to me that at least the
> > academic representatives in this group should know this.
> >
> > The Montevideo meeting is still several weeks away.  The NCDNHC should
> > be able to come up with something better than the resolution proposed.
> > Or, realize that it is okay to admit that the answer to the problem is
> > still maturing and a resolution is not possible at this time.
> >
> > Derek Conant
> > DNSGA President and Chairman
> >
> > Telephone:  (202) 801-0158
> > Facsimile:  (202) 234-0685
> > E-mail:  dconant at dnsga.org
> >
> > Chris Chiu wrote:
> > >
> > > Non-Commercial Constituency Resolution
> > > on Intellectual Property and New Top-Level Domains
> > > Montevideo- September 7, 2000
> > >
> > > Whereas:
> > > ICANN does not have the Authority to regulate intellectual property 
> rights,
> > > and has neither the mandate nor the expertise to do so;
> > >
> > > Past attempts to impose intellectual property-based restrictions (both
> > > through advance trademark claims within new TLDs and the Uniform 
> Domain Name
> > > Dispute Resolution Policy) have contributed to corporate domination 
> of the
> > > domain space at the expense of private Internet users and non-profit 
> groups;
> > > and
> > >
> > > These problems have been exacerbated by ICANN's approval of only 7 
> new TLDs
> > > to date;
> > >
> > > Resolved:
> > > ICANN should not introduce any further restrictions on the 
> registration of
> > > new TLDs based on their connection with trademarks; and
> > >
> > > ICANN should approve all new Top-Level Domain applications that can meet
> > > fair and reasonable technical criteria.