[ga-full] Re: NCDNHC proposed resolution on famous names and new TLDs

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

All assembly members,

  Some more on the exchange/discussion on the Noncom list on TLD's
================

Subject:
             Re: NCDNHC proposed resolution on famous names and new TLDs

        Date:
             Tue, 28 Mar 2000 23:13:03 -0800
       From:
             Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>
 Organization:
             INEGroup Spokesman
         To:
             "Kevin J. Connolly" <CONNOLLK@rspab.com>
         CC:
             NCDNHC-Discuss@lyris.isoc.org
        BCC:
             DOMAIN-POLICY <DOMAIN-POLICY@LISTS.INTERNIC.NET>
  References:
             1




Kevin and all,

Kevin J. Connolly wrote:

> Milton Mueller <mueller@syr.edu> wrote: (03/28/00 01:05PM)
> >For those of you who don't know, Kevin Connolly is not a member of
NCC and is here
> >merely to support the views of his clients. Fair enough -- we have an
open list,
> >but some disclosure is important for those of you who are not aware
of this.
>
> This is a problem with several layers to it.
> (1)  Prof. Mueller does not know what he's talking about, not that
that has ever
> stopped him in the past.

  Well of course this is totally incorrect.  But that does not mean one
cannot
disagree with Milton from time to time, as any of us can with anyone
else
as well....  So you comment here seems more along the lines of
"Sour-Grapes"
more than anything else...

>
>
> (2)  That I am not a member of the NCC is one of the more bizarre
aspects of the
> ICANN process.  I have applied (twice) for membership.  So far as I
can tell, there is
> no _good_ reason why those applications have been ignored.  So (given
the regime
> rules that are supposed to govern the NCC) this current state of
affairs speaks poorly
> for ICANN, the NCC, and the DNSO.

  I agree with you here.  It is deplorable that anyone that has applied
that has
not been given a written response or rejection notice outlining the
reasons
for your application not being accepted.  It is also deplorable that the
ICANN
Board does not at least look into this as these constituencies are part
of
ICANN itself.  The DNSO being the illegitimate organization that it has
now
become due to some actions by certain individuals and a fraudulent
voting
process is of course not in a position to make or effect any remedy for
this obvious problem.

>
>
> (3)  I am not here lobbying on behalf of any clients.  I have no
clients who have an
> interest (one way or the other) in how these issues are resolved.  I
am here because
> I am an Internet user; I have been a participant in the domain name
wars for as long
> as there have been domain name wars, and I am darned tootin' tired of
the repeated
> attempts of people who _think_ they are Internet insiders to silence
me.

  Even though I often disagree with you positions I do believe that you
alone with
any stakeholder has a right under the White Paper and the MoU to
participate
on an equal footing with any other stakeholder.

>
>
> >
> >Second, his argument is false, and rather obviously so. In general,
the trademark
> >people have less objection to the kind of TLDs Jamie Love is
proposing, which are
> >differentiated, chartered, and non-commercial.
>
> A straw man argument from a master of indirection.
>
> I am not addressing the merits of Mr. Love's proposals.  I am speaking
to the threshold
> issue of mitigating some of the continuing opposition to the addition
of any new TLDs to
> the root.
>
> >What they are afraid of are new,
> >highly generic commercial TLDs such as .biz or .web, which might
foster confusion
> >about where a trademark will be found. It should be noted that in
WG-C, Connolly
> >did NOT support principles calling for differentiated TLDs, despite
explicit
> >statements from trademark and Business/Commercial constituency
members that they
> >would find such new TLDs acceptable.
>
> There is a strong element in the opposition that is fighting against
adding .foowxy321 to
> the root, because there's every reason to believe that coke.foowxy321,
and all the
> rest, will be registered about 15 seconds after the system goes live.

  Well if there is to this particular TLD, it have not read or seen any
such public
statement to support your claim here Kevin.  Can you possibly provide
one?

>
>
> I did not support the "principles" because they would have imposed an
intolerable
> burden on the operators of any proposed new TLD registries.  The
requirement that
> a registry operator vet a proposed delegation before putting it in the
zone file is a sure
> recipe for second-level domain names that will be few in number and
horribly expensive.

  How?  What is your reasoning for this belief?

>
> What's needed is a process for determining, on a principled basis,
that certain
> second level domain names will not be delegated except under very
sharply delimited
> circumstances.  The trick is to make this concession and preserve the
usefulness of
> the new gTLDs at the same time.

  Agreed.  ANd Chartered TLD's as well as non-shared TLD's would achieve
this,
or at least could.

>
>
> >
> >Third, this constituency needs to support what is right, first, and
worry about
> >what is politically expedient second. We do not obtain "clout" in
this process by
> >letting another constituency -- IPCC -- dictate our agenda.
>
> As I have said before, the IAHC tried to do what was right, and it got
nowhere fast.

  This is of course bunk as history show's clearly.

>
> Jon Postel tried to do what was right, and his life and his livelihood
were threatened.
> Anyone who thinks that the non-commercial Internet user is going to
see the promised
> land of new TLDs because they are the right thing to have is living in
a fool's paradise.

  Again I am sure that you are deluded in this belief.

>
> >
> >A few other minor comments/responses below
> >
> >Kevin J. Connolly wrote:
> >
> >> Serious proposals for new GTLDs
> >> have been floating around for years.  They have gone
> >> nowhere fast.
> >
> >That's because the authority structure for resolving the problems was
undefined.
>
> That's the NSI line.  The fact is that the authority structure was
well-known and
> worked just fine until it was destabilized by NSI and its running dog
lackeys.

  The authority structure never existed in fact, but was a times implied
Kevin.
This is also well documented in the IAHC and gTLD-MoU list archives.

>
>
> >We now have ICANN and that is globally recognized as the
institutional mechanism
> >for handling these questions. We are making progress, although
slowly. the issue
> >should be resolved in Japan in July.
> >
> The belief in ICANN's global recognition is overstated.  I do not
suggest holding
> your breath in anticipation of registrations being accepted anytime
soon.  I would
> be pleasantly surprised to be proven wrong.  We need more allies to
get across
> the river.  It does not get us to the promised land if we sit around
and say that we
> will not cooperate with another set of stakeholders.

  ICANN is moving in the opposite direction if it intends to gain
allies.  This much
is becoming more and more evident and widely known with each day.  The
EU
is not trusting of ICANN, and Asia is not beginning to doubt ICANN as
well,
as we all have been made abundantly aware of in recent weeks and months.

>
>
> >There is little danger that no new TLds will be created. The WG has
reported out
> >that 6-10 will be created, the only question now is which ones and
who gets them,
> >and the process for distributing them.
>
> Just because WG-C says that there should be 6-10 new gTLDs does not
mean
> that the battle is over.  WG-C's recommendation is analogous to the
IAHC
> recommendation.  NSI stole the whois database and the root, and
there's no reason
> to believe that if ICANN directs a change in the content of the root
that something
> *interesting* won't result again. It wouldn't be the first time that
NSI's access to covert
> resources, soft money and congressional meddling will have derailed
the whole process.

  I think it is high time congress took a bigger role here anyway.  The
ICANN board
has shown clearly along with the NTIA and WIPO that they wish to dictate
and
almost routinely violate their own legal agreements without impunity.

>
> >
> >> For at least 2000 years past, the best-known method for beating
> >> a strong political opponent is "divide and conquer."
> >
> >Who is the strong political opponent of whom, Kevin? ;-)
>
> Let's see:
>
> Association for Interactive Media
> National Broadcasting Company
> NSI
>
> have been openly hostile to the process.
>
> Disney, CDT, ITAA have been marginally hostile to the process.
>
> Rep. Pickering has made it clear that he will torpedo any attempt to
subject the
> Internet to any measure of international control, and he's the
chairman of the house
> committee on basic science....which controls the NSF.....which
controls the A-root.
>
> This is a "just off the top of my head" listing of the most powerful
opponents of the
> process.
>
> Then we have the Microsoft/RealNames maneuver, which will make the DNS

> obsolete.  They will almost certain join in the process of litigating
new domain names
> to death.
>
> If the suggestion is that I am an opponent of the new TLDs, then the
suggestion
> demonstrates that the suggester is completely out of touch with
reality.  I have been
> a devoted proponent of the privatization and commercialization of the
DNS.  That
> activity has taken money out of my pocket.
> >
> >> The policies which have been proposed to enable the holders of
famous marks
> >> to preemptively exclude their marks from new GTLDs is nothing
> >> less than an attempt to divide the opposition. NSI is never going
> >> to acquiesce in the dilution of the value of its theft
(com/net/org).
> >> The established media have a tremendous economic stake in the
> >> preservation of .com as the place to be.  The trademark community,
> >> on the other hand, is economically-driven.  If we can present an
> >> economical way to satisfy the legitimate interest of famous mark
> >> holders, we can remove a very major stumbling block on the path
> >> to the growth of the TLD namespace.L
> >
> >The political analysis here is incoherent to me. Please elaborate,
and in the
> >process please disclose the economic interests (registrars) with whom
you are
> >affiliated.
>
> (1)  Trademark holders who have their domain names are concerned about
the
> dilution of their marks.
>
> (2)  The "poison list" proposal is intended to give famous mark
holders an economical
> way to protect their rights.  The final step is to convince the mark
holders that they will
> spend less money to protect their marks under the proposed regime than
they will need
> to spend to continue the fight against the TLDs.
>
> (3)  There are no affiliated registrars or other economic interests to
disclose.  The only
famous
> markholder my firm represents (Barnes & Noble) has decided that domain
names != trademarks
> and has migrated its e-commerce site to bn.com.
> >
> >> So long as we continue to insist that there can be no concession
> >> to the holders of famous marks, we will continue to play into the
> >> hands of those who will never go along with the process.
> >
> >The UDRP was a major concesssion and adequately protects any
legitimate interests
> >mark holders have in a domain name.
>
> The UDRP is a post-facto bandaid.  What's needed is a way to keep the
> children from playing with the razor blades in the first place.
>
> >
> >And please refrain from using the pronoun "we." You are not a member
of this
> >constituency.
>
> I will continue to use this pronoun so long as I continue to support
the growth of the
> TLD namespace.  I am, moreover, the owner of a non-commercial domain
name, which
> I use as a family photo album for the edification of my family's
pestilentially numerous
> and widespread membership.  The fact that the NCC has chosen to
exclude me from
> membership (using some criteria which are anything but transparent)
does not
> speak well for the legitimacy of the NCC.  I have not begun to
challenge the legitimacy
> of any ICANN action which depends on the participation of the NCC, but
I believe
> there should be no doubt but that the repeated refusal of the NCC to
process
> my application is indicative of an illegitimate and anti-democratic
agenda on the
> part of at least some of those who have taken control of its
mechanism.
> **********************************************************************

> The information contained in this electronic message is confidential
> and is or may be protected by the attorney-client privilege, the work
> product doctrine, joint defense privileges, trade secret protections,
> and/or other applicable protections from disclosure.  If the reader of

> this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified
> that any use, dissemination, distribution or reproduction of this com-

> munication is strictly prohibited.  If you have received this communi-

> cation in error, please immediately notify us by calling our Help Desk

> at 212-541-2000 ext.3314, or by e-mail to helpdesk@rspab.com
> **********************************************************************

>
> ---
> You are currently subscribed to ncdnhc-discuss as:
Jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
> To unsubscribe send a blank email to
leave-ncdnhc-discuss-1799I@lyris.isoc.org

Regards,



--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman INEGroup (Over 95k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number:  972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208


--
This message was passed to you via the ga-full@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html