Re: [wg-c] voting on TLDs

[Jonathan Weinberg <weinberg@mail.msen.com>]

	Speaking as somebody who was working for the USG at the time, drafted the
interagency task force report that Dave mentions, and helped draft the
Green Paper, I'm not sure any of the comments in this thread get it quite
right.  I'd tell, but then I'd have to kill you  :-}

Jon



At 02:24 PM 3/13/00 -0800, you wrote:
>At 12:04 PM 3/13/00 -0500, Milton Mueller wrote:
>>From: "Kevin J. Connolly"
>> > Nope.  The #1 reason why the GTLD-MOU tanked was opposition from the
>> > trademark community.
>>
>>Nope. The #1 reason was the US government's lack of...er....comfort at the
>>role of the ITU. ICANN was created primarily to avoid having to put these
>
>The ITU?  You are kidding, right?
>
>You seem to confuse the rhetoric of some noisy voices with legitimate fact.
>
>Having been in the middle of the activities at that time and having gotten 
>assessments from a number of independent sources directly -- including two 
>meetings with Magaziner and many second-hand reports of regular 
>conversations with him -- I heard a consistent summary that a) a PORTION of 
>the trademark community -- namely a few very large multi-nationals, and b) 
>the U.S. Congress were the primary reasons Magaziner felt compelled to 
>re-invent IANA rather than allow it to develop under its own steam.
>
>The ITU made good news copy for rabble-rousers but concerns about them 
>never had any substance.  The factual aspects of ITU concerns were raised 
>by the US government and pursued through normal channels.  For example the 
>one that got the most publicity resulted in an ITU member country review 
>committee -- of which the US was a part -- and it produced a unanimous 
>statement of support for the ITU's involvement.
>
>Unanimous means that the US approved.
>
>
>>The #2 reason was the refusal of the USG to allow a government contractor
>>such as IANA to grab control of valuable taxpayer-funded assets without any
>>formal authorization.
>
>A well-spoken representation of a popular -- albeit false -- view, 
>unencumbered by any concern over the actual facts of the actual history.
>
>IANA already had control and had been exercising it since the inception of 
>the DNS.  The U.S. government had very little involvement in IANA 
>activities.  By contrast IANA had the full support -- and the derived 
>authority -- of the Internet community.  Magaziner's Green paper countered 
>a -- still unpublished -- US interagency task force report's 
>recommendations and, effectively, undermined IANA's existing authority.
>
>
>>The trademark theory is an odd one, given the participation of WIPO and INTA
>>in the gTLD-MoU, and the fact that gTLD-MoU gave them more power and more
>
>Nice of you to cite that.  It is often forgotten.  Indeed, they did 
>participate and in good faith.
>
>On the other hand, a small number of specific, multi-national corporations 
>conducted their own, forceful lobbying campaign privately.  They tended to 
>present a public facade of being supportive but were working quite hard at 
>undermining things.  And they succeeded.
>
>
>
>At 12:21 PM 3/13/00 -0500, Kevin J. Connolly wrote:
>>How fascinating.  Where, in the CORE-POC paradigm, did the
>>trademark community have a seat at the table?  Where, in that
>>process, was the ability to prevent the growth of the TLD
>>namespace forever by imposing operationally-impossible
>>constraints?
>
>(Just to show that my concern for accuracy is not partisan...)  The WIPO 
>and INTA were on the IAHC.  As I recall we also wrote them into the 
>POC.  For that matter, the recently adopted dispute policy is essentially 
>identical with the mechanism put forward in the IAHC proposal and, as I 
>recall, first suggested by the WIPO participant.
>
>d/
>
>=-=-=-=-=
>Dave Crocker  <dcrocker@brandenburg.com>
>Brandenburg Consulting  <www.brandenburg.com>
>Tel: +1.408.246.8253,  Fax: +1.408.273.6464
>675 Spruce Drive,  Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA
>
>
>