Re: [wg-c] Straw Vote

["A.M. Rutkowski" <amr@netmagic.com>]

Hi Rita,


> If these requirements had existed prior to to
> opening up of the domain name space to commercial enterprises, a lot of
> resources spent on combatting cubersquatting and other types of
> infringement would have been saved and better spent on reinvestment in
> the economy.

We've been down this path before.  In 1992, elaborate rules
were developed for domain name registrations for the "de
jure"
domain name system by a public advisory committee that met for
many months and considered all the infringement concerns.
They were all put into place.  They still exist.  They
still
constitute the "de jure" DNS arrangements in the US.

The problem is that no one used them; and everyone has conveniently
forgotten about them.  

The Internet "de facto" DNS was created as a low overhead means
of 
maintaining a distributed database for names that Internet users 
gave their computers.   It was very popular, and everyone began
to 
use it. 

Ultimately we're dealing with some tradeoffs here regarding
administrative overhead and associated costs.  So the bottom 
line is that when your suggestion was followed - the burdens
were so great that the arrangements failed.  The "de
facto"
arrangements struck that balance very differently and succeeded
for the greater good.


> Actually, I would like to see the requirements
> apply to all levels of domain names - infirngement can happen at all
> levels. I don't think there is a distinction.

OK.  Here to we have a choice of administrative overhead.
What I suggest is that those who are concerned, cut a deal
with Mark Lottor and every six months - or more frequently
if you want to pay - you can discover infringements, and make
enforcement decisions.  The alternative is to require the
many millions of DNS service providers and their customers
to bear the costs.  You could actually enforce famous 
trademark
rights fairly inexpensively and easily in this fashion.

> >And lastly, why are we just regulating
> Internet DNS services?
> >There are a great deal of other Internet services out there.
>
> I'm not sure what you mean by other Internet services (as oposed to
> Internet DNS services) - would you please clarify?

Sure.  We're dealing with private, enhanced services
provisioning.
Why are they getting singled out for and potentially subjected to 
this special regulatory regime.  Or as the EU 9 August proposal
to
the WTO suggests, all "Internet access and network service
providers"
are now going to be subject to regulatory treatment as telecoms?
Is this what we're all helping along?




--tony