NCSG input on request for special privileges for Red Cross & International Olympic Committee regarding Internet domains

[Nicolas Adam]

I am no doubt missing a lot of things from these debates, but...

Source doc from the 14th sept addressed sld strings. Source doc from
20th june addressed TLD strings. Both were lumped together in this
discussion (I thought) although this discussion admittedly proceeded
largely on principled grounds. I suppose it could have gained in
relevance had we dwelled on the details of the justifications of the
implementation of both, /before/ going on principled grounds, if it must
have gone there at all. But, to my/our defense, it's not like the
justifications for those positions (reserving strings) are cleanly
presented for debate. Even deep in the links. Justifications are usually
summed up by academic critics, from whose summary of talking points and
implicit politics can we then try to assess those justifications and
opine and/or carve out ideas for policy-making ....

So ... Was under the impression that both were being discussed and chose
to address only TLDs.

The logic is still the same though (even though my first sentence about
compromise and politics still applies). I understand that the reserve
list is already existing, so some bad policy choice was made before
(which makes me reflect on the 'value' of compromise here). I guess no
one will be surprised if I hold an ideologically-consequent position on
this very-related although different policy matter:

If they apply for red-cross.africa, good for them. If they don't, they
have no use for it. If they do and merely park it (the reserve list is
meant to prevent that 'obligation'), they should be stripped of it, just
like any other cybersquatter, as per Tim's very reasonable use test
doctrine proposal, or existing misuse laws, norms, and/or regs as others
have suggested. They should not be allowed to colonize yet to exist SLD
string.

To address and counter a few potential justification for a reserve-policy :

Yes, phishing may happen. Yes, parody and critique may befall this or
other great organization. Just like it could from any book bearing the
title "Red Cross", or just like it could in any other piece of media,
including any addressing compendium or system.

In any case, the intention of preventing parody and critique, while it
may well be an underground justification for these kinds of positions,
is simply not defensible. As for preventing phishing through a reserve
list, this is not only overkill, it is overkill that sets precedent for
bad law and subsequent bad compromise.

As for my point about compromise, I am not that wise and lazy yet: I
make it merely not to yell too much about turning the clocks on settled
bad policy, and because I know that extreme demands may be
counterproductive. I defer to you good people doing a wonderful job, and
i try to do so with reserve. But, as to my principled belief I hold that
the strange doctrine that trademarked or famous strings must be
protected in an addressing scheme was never supported by law or facts
relating to the public interest. It was a compromise that I wish would
not have been made but that might have been understandable in the
context of then-TLD usage and related cybersquatting rush of the first
come first serve era. I am a businessman and i can see the point of
having a rapid and cheap mechanism for resolving numerous potential
conflicts. What we needed then and what we need now is a
(mis)use-doctrine, including, importantly, the obligation to use. Sadly
the hard cases were solved with wrong analogies and bad law was crafted
and a misplaced sense of entitlement or property on addressing strings
prevailed.

Now, as Nuno and others have noted, people use domain names much more
loosely now a days, and so those early veiling and hard-case
circumstances are mostly gone and I see no reason to extend this bad
policy.

I am therefore tempted to conclude this late night ramble by a quote
from "Life line
<http://www.webscription.net/chapters/0743471598/0743471598___2.htm>"
that goes a little like this:

"The temporary injunction is lifted, and Dr. Pinero must not be molested
in the pursuit of his business. Decision on the petition for permanent
injunction is reserved without prejudice pending the accumulation of
evidence. Before we leave this matter I wish to comment on the theory
implied by you, Mr. Weems, when you claimed damage to your client. There
has grown up in the minds of certain groups in this country the notion
that because a man or corporation has made a profit out of the public
for a number of years, the government and the courts are charged with
the duty of guaranteeing such profit in the future, even in the face of
changing circumstances and contrary to public interest. This strange
doctrine is not supported by statute nor common law. Neither individuals
nor corporations have any right to come into court and ask that the
clock of history be stopped, or turned back."

Nicolas

On 10/5/2011 11:20 PM, McTim wrote:
> Nicholas,
>
> On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 3:04 AM, Nicolas Adam<nickolas.adam at gmail.com>  wrote:
>> I can appreciate the importance of politics and compromise here. But ...
>>
>> Why don't Red Cross apply for it's god-forsaken string?
> If you read the source doc, it's about 2nd level domain names which
> they want to protect. so NOT dotredcross, but redcross.africa,
> redcross.eco, redcross, nyc, etc, etc.
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20111006/bf68e127/attachment-0001.html>