[wg-c] The fruits of confessional conflict (Sunday after Solstice)

[Eric Brunner <brunner@world.std.com>]

Ambler, Auerbach, Mueller, Meyer, Walsh need not read further.


The last time I wrote a "Sunday Sermon" I took pains to reference the rich,
even exuberant expression of Calvin on the theme of Job, and to the number
of errors cited Luther. I'd a reason. I was making reference to affliction
as a situation, and to the period from 1559 to 1715 in European history,
when confessional conflict was the norm -- the Wars of Religion.

Ideological conflict began in 1517 with Luther -- neither a combatant nor
a partizan. John Calvin and St. Ignatius of Loyola moved the most militant
(and disciplined) of the warring faithfuls, who continued long after their
respective retirements. After the deaths of the initial intellectuals, no
figure of enduring religious leadership emerged in Europe until after the
emergence of dynastic custody over confessional conflict, circa 1650, and
the general peace of 1713 (Western Europe) and 1721 (Eastern Europe).

Grimmelshausen, a contemporary writer, follows a naive peasant boy through
one disaster after another; soldiers and civilians routinely torture and
kill one another, with the civilians always getting the worst of it. Cheery
reading, like our little bit of ICANN, neh? The work is entitled "Adventures
of a Simpleton".

It would be nice if the "DNS Wars" took a turn for some other condition,
as the namespace is likely to be around for a very long time, at least as
long as the abstraction of a telephone numbering system, or radio spectal
allocations. We've been at it now for four years, and it may be another
four years before either Network Solutions has a competitor, or next has
to a Sunset Moment to extend the status quo across, and at least that long
before public law codifies solutions to the marks abuse issues in the G-7
jurisdictions, or reaches useful status as an International Instrument, via
WIPO.

There are "big issues" and any constituency or group that squanders its 
reserves on who gets to play "pokey" on the net, or gets to be the first
absurdly selected (lottery has been mentioned) and undercapitalized shock
trooper to storm both the gates of Network Solutions and take the heads
(or tribute) in passing of the Trademark nobility, or who takes credit for
prolonging stasis, is not going to have a lot to offer when these riviting
issues pass.

At some point this private law playpen will convert, by reference or by
value, into public law regimes. ICANN isn't an ITO. The ITU is, as are a
few other institutional players in this version of "a DNS namespace". Which
of the current militants are planning on being stakeholders in the ITO that
has some role in "governance" of something via root-anchored name resolvers?

While the noise and fury in this broadly comic opera have been focused on
the DNS leg of the three-legged stool that is ICANN, where any opinion is
better than any other, which is why we have Milt and Roeland, though not
Flemming nor Williams, the eventual ITO will absolutely govern (end-2-end
transparency capable) address allocation and (interoperable) protocols,
which isn't penny candy.

In addition to the mess Jon sought to avoid[1], the least constructive
rendering of service from the registry service model, FQDNs as marks, how
value is constructed from the standard registrant-registrar transaction
is the eventual focus of the Common Names Resolution Protocol WG in the
IETF. Mediated access to names registration data is an area NSI showed
interest in, at IETF-44 and -45, which is a surprise for the sole operator
of the only registry worth mining, or slamming. Access to "common names"
without recourse to a FQDN also comes as a surprise.

At some point contention over the place of marks in the top-level of the DNS
will be history, and be replaced by content as the hot button of legacy
(pre-net) rights holders e.g., film and music, however the nexus of control
isn't as likely to be in new xLDs as marks are in the enduring present, as
for the eventual patent interest in non-legacy data.

At some point then the marks lawyers, late-accessors to the DNS, will file
out, satiated, leaving only a picket watch, with legacy marks stuck in some
static corner of the DNS universe, one presumed incapable of accumulating
dust, or becomming stale as money _is_ better than technology (or is it?).

This will probably be when the growth of the namespace is without recourse
to marks gelt. Why existing marks holders would want the growth areas of the
service model of names-to-addresses to exclude their participation is just
one of those short-term certainties vs long-term uncertainties gambles, not
new or particularly worth attempting to reverse. Just how IPR issues that
follow on the heels of marks are going to find resolution in a net which is
bifurcated into marks-loaded and a marks-devoid subspaces, is a mystery.
I think the marks interests have cannibalized the IP Constituency, or at
least lead by burning bridges, but they may reason that they need no allies,
having absolute control of the institution.

At some point also the anti-monopolists, early-accessors to the DNS, will
also file out, satiated via cash-out, or diluted to inconsequence.

At some point also the trendiness will wear off, and the groupies will be
off to something more important, or likely to get them published.

[Asside:
 I'm quite happy with the proto-proposal that the creative process active in
 the namespace make no accomidations for old capital -- no banks, no marks,
 no legacy content, no pre-net title claims, and naturally, no necessity for
 the involvement of the C Position Paper interests. Berners-Lee was starting
 ab initio, it isn't that big a deal today to do a group of gTLDs with no
 hook for (or need to accomidate) the legacy pre-net title and capital sets
 of entrenching interests. No boring old names, and no boring old players.
]

The question of endurence, which present parties are likely to hold both an
enduring interest in this problem scope, the present WG-C charter, after the
marks depart, after the me-toos thin out, who stands in Jon's stead, and acts
to bring about an enduring institution with a body of substantive law and
art, after ARPA, the NSF, and the DoC, is something to stick in the back of
the mind, and check in the glass along with one's grooming before going out
on the town this New Year's.

I'taamomahkatoyiiksistsikomi (Merry big holy day)
Eric

Responses by Ambler, Auerback, Meuller, Meyer, Walsh are unnecessary.

References:
[1] draft-postel-iana-itld-admin-00.txt, the relevent text reads:
   1.7. Trademarks    

      Domain names are intended to be an addressing mechanism and are
      not intended to reflect trademarks, copyrights or any other
      intellectual property rights.
   
      Except for brief mentions in sections 6.1, 6.4, and 9.3,
      trademarks are not further discussed in this document.