RE: [ga] Re: .info LR2 process and failure of ICANN to heed warnings

["Ross Wm. Rader" <ross@tucows.com>]

As a point of reference, I'd like to draw attention to a letter that we
sent to the chair of working group B at the time that these sunrise
proposals were being put together (April 2000). The conclusions are
still valid today and may merit further attention from the ?NSO.

"The essence of ICANN's problem is the disproportionate attention which
is
being given inside the working groups, and, increasingly outside, in
private conferences, to the pretensions of the IP community to stall the
process of domain name expansion, on grounds that we and our Internet
users consider to be dubious and, in some cases, in outright error:
error
both as to policy as regards the future direction of the Internet, and
more fundamentally, as to their power to hold up domain name expansion
based on the monopoly of the NSI over the root server.

You have received commentary from John Berryhill, which, in our view,
devastates the position of the IPC that they are entitled to extra-legal
privileges in the matter of establishing domain names for famous names,
and lately, for all trade mark holders in all countries.

The IPC's contentions that trade mark holders are owed a special set of
privileges regarding domain names, different from and superior to those
worked out in national legislatures, is not something that other users
of
the Internet need to accept. Moreover, it is unnecessary. The fastest
way
to eradicate the problem that the IPC pretends to solve is to have a
rapid, large expansion of domain names.  The IPC is threatened by this
approach because it diminshes the value of what they are protecting, and
the value fo the services they render.

The issue is not, as  they suppose, "confusion" in the marketplace, or
the protection of consumers. It is the protection of the economic
position of intellectual property lawyers.

What we are actually observing in the saga of domain name expansion is a
power-grab of major proportions over the architecture of the Internet,
using ICANN not so much as a representative forum for IP interests as
the
embodimenet of IP lawyers' interests. This tendency is not good for the
Net, for Internet users, for small businesses which need the increase of
namespace, and ultimately it will lead, if unchecked by common sense and
contrary interests, to the avoidance of the DNS and the downfall of
ICANN.

The policy that should be followed in relation to IP interests is this:
no privilege shall be granted to any trade mark or famous name holder by
ICANN that is not available under domestic trade mark law. We understand
that this principle will need adjustment to accord with the global
nature
of top level domains, but by sticking to it ICANN will do better for the
Internet, for millions of users, and even for the interests of IP
owners,
than a policy of restriction.

TUCOWS has been supporting reasonable compromise between IP owners and
domain name expansion for some time. On reflection, We have decided that
we are not going to get domain name expansion in this way, and that we
are
in fact acceding to a takeover of the political processes of ICANN by a
set of interests that oppose what the Internet stands for. We urge you
to
reconsider the nature of the compromises you may be making, and what you
may consider to be realistic. To us at TUCOWS, compromise with the kinds
of proposals we are seeing coming from the IPC will get us nowhere."



                       -rwr




"There's a fine line between fishing and standing on the shore like an
idiot."
- Steven Wright

Please review our ICANN Reform Proposal:
http://www.byte.org/heathrow
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ga@dnso.org [mailto:owner-ga@dnso.org] On Behalf 
> Of L. Gallegos
> Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2002 4:55 PM
> To: ga@dnso.org
> Subject: Re: [ga] Re: .info LR2 process and failure of ICANN 
> to heed warnings
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 18 Jul 2002, at 2:28, William X Walsh wrote:
> 
> > 
> > The landrush you referred to was not a real RCFS.  What you 
> do is you 
> > make it a violation of the registrars' contracts to accept 
> > preregistration, and then you just open the registry to 
> real time FCFS 
> > registrations, NO queues, no lotteries, nothing but real 
> time FCFS as 
> > the consumer registrations come in.
> > 
> 
> Add to that no bulk registrations or scripts and you have a 
> good point, 
> IMO, at least not during the first few weeks of the landrush.  Let 
> everyone register the same way - one at a time.
> 
> Leah
>   
> 
> --
> This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> 

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