[ncdnhc-discuss] Fwd:Concerning a restricted .org (again)

[Chris Bailey]

>From: "duncan" <dmtpruett at igc.org>
>To: <chrisbailey at gn.apc.org>
>Subject: Re: Discuss digest, Vol 1 #192 - 7 msgs
>Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2001 10:59:07 +0100
>X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600
>
>Hi Chris,
>
>Could you do the needful again?  I've been unable to keep my mouth shut
>again...
>
>Thanks
>
>Duncan
>
> > >Nicaraguans for Intellectuals Killed or Exiled (NIKE) registers
>"nike.org".
> > >They're a non-profit human rights group. Nike (the corporation) comes
>along
> > >and takes them to court using the special DRP under discussion. They
> > >challenge the non-profit credentials of the group in question.
> >
> > This example and the rest Duncan mentions, are far fetched strawmen that
> > further assume tht "DRP under discussion" was written by idiots.
> > Moreover, Duncan apparently completely misunderstands the nature of the
> > proposed DRP.  In particular, the DRP in question is to give a
> > non-profit organization the right to challenge a for-profit organization
> > that is using a .org domain name for commercial purposes.  The idea that
> > the DRP would give anyone on earth the standing to challenge any .org
> > name is silly.
>
>When I argued this one out with the representatives of the Intellectual
>Property Constituency in Marina Del Rey in the context of .union we defended
>exactly this approach - that the UDRP would need to be changed so that only
>a bona fide trade union could bring a complaint against a registration in
>the proposed TLD - because the UDRP says _anyone_ can bring a challenge. The
>IPC people argued that any company should be able to challenge a
>registration too (eg. Amazon Inc. should be able to challenge Amazon.union).
>We didn't agree with them then (since it would open up the possibility of
>the system being abused), and therefore can I agree with you on this - if
>it's restricted, only non-commercial players can bring a complaint. But then
>you have to check that the organisation bringing the complaint is
>non-commercial (or at least, it must be possible for the non-com credentials
>of the complainant to be challenged). There have to be criteria applied. I
>continue to argue that those criteria are the problem, and not the mechanism
>you put in place to enforce them. I'm sure you could find a hundred ways of
>running a restricted domain. You could refine and refine till you get to a
>perfect mechanism. But if the criteria are highly contraversial, it doesn't
>matter how perfect your system is.
>
>Maybe I've missed it, but I don't think there has been any serious
>discussion of those criteria on this list. I, along with others active in
>the international non-commercial environment, have made the point many times
>that the _criteria_ are the sticking point, and not their application. I
>don't disagree with the idea of restricted TLDs (my involvement in the
>.union proposal is testament to this), but before the ICFTU came forward
>with its proposal, we had a lively internal debate on the definition of a
>trade union organisation and the applicability of that definition -  it was
>not easy, but it was possible, because there is a well-structured
>international trade union movement to handle this kind of question - that
>means that there was a bunch of people legitimately representing trade
>unions all over the world qualified to discuss this (ditto for .museum, and
>.coop). But there's nothing like that for the nebulous "non-commercial"
>community, except perhaps the NCDNHC. Of course, this platform could play a
>role in this, but then it should not start by discussing whether restrictive
>TLDs can work - we'll learn those lessons from .coop and .museum. Plenty of
>lawyers already working on that side of the issue! I respectfully submit
>that the NCDNHC should start by working out whether any definition or
>criteria can gain anything close to broad acceptance. I'd be not only amazed
>but also delighted to discover that something could be worked out. If that
>ever happens, people can go off and prepare ingenious proposals to run it.