Tucows letter, was RE: [ga] Re: .info LR2 process ...

[Karl Auerbach <karl@CaveBear.com>]

On Fri, 19 Jul 2002, Ross Wm. Rader wrote:

> 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.

I agree with you in general, however, let me suggest what I believe is an 
even more clear principle:

ICANN ought to adhere solely to those technical matters that directly
pertain to the ability of the Internet to reliably, accurately, and
promptly move packets from one IP address to another and for the
ICANN/NTIA DNS root to reliably, accurately, and promptly return answers
DNS queries.

Intellectual property concerns are, under that definition, outside the
proper scope of ICANN and are best left to those bodies, primarily
national legislatures and some treaty organizations, that have been
established to promulgate such rules.

ICANN spokespersons, such as we have heard on this list, once one elides
all abusive and scurrilous language, have lately started to "argue" for a
"new" "small" ICANN with limited powers.  I too, have advocated a small,
limited ICANN, and I have been doing so ever since the days of the green
and papers.  If those spokespersons truely wish to put their actions where
their mouths are then they should recognize that things such as UDRP
itself, the system of adjudication that exists to apply it, the
micromanaging regulatory scheme imposed on DNS registries/registrars, and
the glacial "procedures" to chose new TLDs, are all creations that go well
beyond any small or limited definition of ICANN's duties.

I'm sure I will hear all kinds of assertions from this or that person
that ICANN has undertaken the protection of intellectual property under
the MoU from NTIA.  However, there is a serious question whether NTIA has
any power to delegate with respect to the creation of supranational laws
over intellectual property.  And ICANN could have refused to accept that
task by saying, as it out to have said, that such a task has absolutely
nothing to do with the technical stability of the Internet.

		--karl--







--
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