Re: [wg-c] more on non-shaired gTLDs

[James Love <love@cptech.org>]

On Mon, 20 Mar 2000, William X. Walsh wrote:
> >     Rather than giving everyone the .edu, it would make more sense to
> > create more TLDs.
> 
> So instead you have Network Solutions deciding what is or is not a valid
> educational institution.    Great solution, and has been proven not to work
> very well.  The number of bogus processed registrations under .edu have been up
> considerly.  I see reports of new ones every month.


    The issue of who should enforce a TLD restriction is an important
one, and I think the NSI experience has shown that one can have
problems if the decision maker has the wrong incentives.

   Most of the issues you raise here and elsewhere in your missive
concern too little enforcement.  I suggestion that you just eliminate
enforcement altogether is one solution.   It's certainly not our
position.  

    The view that there should be no enforcement is a an interesting
position.  My guess is that it will not gain much support in the
non-commerical constituency, but that remains to be seen.  A policy of
non enforcement is of course a policy.  

   If NSI isn't going a good job of enforcement, then it should have the
registry taken away.


> Why not let the consumers decide for themselves what the meaning of those
> strings of characters mean to them?

     If you mean, let anyone use .edu, .int, .gov or .mil, this would
basically devalue the TLD.  Look, if you want lots of gTLDs, and I think
this is a good idea (lets have thousands), go for it.  But to stop
anyone from a having a restricted TLD doesn't make sense to me,
particularly when it is possible to expand the TLD space so much.

   [snip]

> >> I don' t know what you are referring to here, but ICANN's sole
> >> function is technical coordination. 
> > 
> >     Well, I don't see that what we are discussing here is strickly
> > technical.  
> 
> But it should be.  ICANN's charter, is the Board continues to try and remind us
> and the press, is TECHNICAL COORDINATION.  They cannot have it both ways. 
> Either ICANN changes their charter and their contract with the USG to become a
> global policy structure for Internet Governance, or they leave those issues
> where they belong, OUTSIDE of the technical coordination of the Internet's
> protocols, numbers, and names.
>  

   Ok.  If you think the decision to approve .sucks, .union, .isnotfair,
etc is a strickly technical decision fine.  Or if you think the issue of
restricted versus open TLDs is strickly technical, fine.  I guess you
can say its a technical decision, if you want.  After all, lets allow
anyone to use the word, "technical."  ;-)

> You think ICANN is eliminating anonymity?  I registered a domain
> just two weeks ago under a pseudonym.  I did it for a real purpose.  
> ICANN has no process or authority to change that, and nothing it has
> done up until now has prevented that.  Nor should they.

ICANN has told IP owners that it will enforce the requirements that the
Whois gives acurate information on who owns a domain.  This is from a
report by Steve Metalitz, after a Jan 27, 2000 meeting with ICANN staff:

     "ICANN is initiating a 'comprehensive compliance review program' to
     make sure that accredited registrars . . . are fulfilling th
     obligations they assumed in their accreditation agreements.  The
     goal is to mak  such compliance policing a "core competence" of 
     ICANN.  . . .  I intervened in strong support of the need for ICANN 
     to ensure that accredited registrars are in compliance with their
     obligations, particularly regarding WHOIS."

http://lists.essential.org/pipermail/random-bits/2000q1/000047.html

    FTC Commissioner Mozelle Thompson, at the Feb TACD meetings and in
Strasbough last thrusday, and Andrew Pincus of DOC at the Feb TACD
meeting, both indicated that the US government was asking ICANN to
provide truthful information on domain registrations -- names of real
people, "not Mickey Mouse or something," in order to faciliate law
enforce actions.  The FTC said the US government has submitted comments
on this topic to ICANN in writing.

    At the Cario meeting, Esther seemed to be saying that this wasn't an
issue, because a real person could register a domain and let others use
it.   I think it is clear that this isn't the same as anonymous
registration.   

     I'm not saying this is a justified policy, or that it isn't.  I
think the IP owners and law enforcement authorities have legitimate
interests, as do groups that favor free speech and privacy.  But it does
seem to be a "policy" issue, that cannot be avoided.   Either ICANN will
or will not require truthfull whois information, to make domain owners
more accountable for web contents, and subject to various legal actions.
Next, you just have to ask, what will the legal obligations be on people
who register domains that are said to engage in activities that are
deemed illegal or to generate liabilities of various types.  NSI has
already crossed this bridge, and taken back domains at the request of
governments.  (According to the US FTC last week).

> >     The suggestion was made in Strasbough, last week, that ICANN be
> > required to put provisions into its contracts that it would permit
> > courts in any country to order a domain be removed.  Apparently NSI has
> > been doing this for a while already, but the new competitive registry
> > system makes this less of a "one stop shopping" issue for court orders.  

> 
> That suggestion can be made, but that suggestion is wrought with
> problems.  A court in Germany has absolutely no authority over me,
> and if ICANN removes my domain name on the order of a German court,
> ICANN is going to find it on the wrong side of a lawsuit about my
> rights to due process.  They can make the agreement say whatever
> they want, but when those provisions are ruled unlawful in a court,
> they will provide no protection for ICANN or it's Board of Directors
> when they are held responsible for their actions.

   Maybe you should take a look at the pending Hague Convention on
private law, or talk to a lawyer about the cross border enforcement
actions.  The world is becoming a smaller place, and even US citizens
have to think about laws in other countries.  I'm not sure how this will
be avoided.  Certainly not by wishful thinking.  I was in Paris this
weekend, and reading about the UK use of its rather restrictive crown
copyright laws to bring civil actions against a former M15 employee
living in Paris who was publishing state secrets on the Internet.  The
UK strategy was to bring civil actions against the former employee, and
seek to have them enforced.  

   Jamie

--------------------------
James Love, Consumer Project on Technology    
P.O. Box 19367        | http://www.cptech.org 
Washington, DC 20036  | love@cptech.org       
Voice 202/387-8030    | Fax 202/234-5176