Re: [wg-c] TUCOWS.com Comments on IPC Sunrise Proposal

[katie@imt.net]

4/15/00 sa 4:58 pm mdt

Bravo! Mr. Rader.

Would you please post to the list, the text of John Berryhill's commentary.

Katie Vestal

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
At 05:51 PM 4/15/00 -0400, Ross Wm Rader wrote:
>
>15 April, 2000
>
>Michael Palage
>Chair, Working Group B/Registrars Constituency Secretariat
>Domain Name Supporting Organization
>Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
>
>
>Michael,
>
>TUCOWS.com Inc. is responding in the limited time available to your
>request that we comunicate our views concerning the latest proposals from
>the Intellectual Property Constituency, called "sunrise plus twenty."
>
>While we are aware that you are acting as best you can in limited
>circumstances of budget and time, TUCOWS must protest the inadequate
>consultation that has taken place in regard to these proposals, and must
>on grounds of substance reject them in their entirety. We find it
>increasingly anomalous that the secretary of the registrars association is
>acting to compromise the interests of IP holders with the interests of the
>vast mass of Internet users in this way.
>
>The essence of ICANN's problem is the disproportionate attention which is
>being given inside the working groups, and, increasingly outside, in
>private conferences, to the pretensions of the IP community to stall the
>process of domain name expansion, on grounds that we and our Internet
>users consider to be dubious and, in some cases, in outright error: error
>both as to policy as regards the future direction of the Internet, and
>more fundamentally, as to their power to hold up domain name expansion
>based on the monopoly of the NSI over the root server.
>
>You have received commentary from John Berryhill, which, in our view,
>devastates the position of the IPC that they are entitled to extra-legal
>privileges in the matter of establishing domain names for famous names,
>and lately, for all trade mark holders in all countries.
>
>The IPC's contentions that trade mark holders are owed a special set of
>privileges regarding domain names, different from and superior to those
>worked out in national legislatures, is not something that other users of
>the Internet need to accept. Moreover, it is unnecessary. The fastest way
>to eradicate the problem that the IPC pretends to solve is to have a
>rapid, large expansion of domain names.  The IPC is threatened by this
>approach because it diminshes the value of what they are protecting, and
>the value fo the services they render.
>
>The issue is not, as  they suppose, "confusion" in the marketplace, or
>the protection of consumers. It is the protection of the economic
>position of intellectual property lawyers.
>
>What we are actually observing in the saga of domain name expansion is a
>power-grab of major proportions over the architecture of the Internet,
>using ICANN not so much as a representative forum for IP interests as the
>embodimenet of IP lawyers' interests. This tendency is not good for the
>Net, for Internet users, for small businesses which need the increase of
>namespace, and ultimately it will lead, if unchecked by common sense and
>contrary interests, to the avoidance of the DNS and the downfall of ICANN.
>
>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.
>
>TUCOWS has been supporting reasonable compromise between IP owners and
>domain name expansion for some time. On reflection, We have decided that
>we are not going to get domain name expansion in this way, and that we are
>in fact acceding to a takeover of the political processes of ICANN by a
>set of interests that oppose what the Internet stands for. We urge you to
>reconsider the nature of the compromises you may be making, and what you
>may consider to be realistic. To us at TUCOWS, compromise with the kinds
>of proposals we are seeing coming from the IPC will get us nowhere.
>
>Yours sincerely,
>
>Ross Wm. Rader
>Director, Assigned Names Division
>TUCOWS.com Inc.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>--------------------------------------------------------------
>Ross Wm. Rader                     http://www.domaindirect.com
>Director, Assigned Names Division       http://www.opensrs.org    
>TUCOWS.com Inc.                     http://www.domainwatch.com
>ross@tucows.com                    http://www.domainsurfer.com
>--------------------------------------------------------------
>t. (416) 531-2697 x 335                      f. (416) 531-5584
>----------------"Because-People-Need-Names"-------------------<