Re: [IFWP] another proposal
Here is another proposal currently in progress http://shutupcockato/proposal2html
[IFWP] Re: Complaint to Dept of Commerce on abuse of users byICANN
At 1:26 PM -0400 7/31/00, Richard J. Sexton wrote: It's also worth noting that virtually every other major Internet service has been swamped by unexpected load. Predicting load, and engineering for it without prior experience in that particular kind (and popularity) of service is just plain hard. --Steve Bellovin You really think so Steve? The Porsche mailing lists have 34,000 subscribers and it seems to me the notion of inviting the world to vote on how the Interent will be run (especially in light of all the "outreach" talk that's bandied about) will have a much greater auduience than a bunch of Porche owners. Anticipating 5000 users just weems wacky; if it were me I'd may sure it could work for a million with a contingency plan in place if/whe it exceeded that. Regardless of whether predicting load is difficult or not, this was something that was a part of the contract from the beginning. Government contractors generally must abide by the terms of their contract, even if it is difficult. That is a part of the risk of doing business. Poor planning is rarely an excuse.
Re: [IFWP] Re: Complaint to Dept of Commerce on abuse of users byICANN
On Mon, Jul 31, 2000 at 01:29:39PM -0400, Mikki Barry wrote: [...] Regardless of whether predicting load is difficult or not, this was something that was a part of the contract from the beginning. Government contractors generally must abide by the terms of their contract, even if it is difficult. That is a part of the risk of doing business. Poor planning is rarely an excuse. Irrelevant. The contract in question is basically for a joint research project. This experience and the ensuing study will shed a lot of light on the difficulties of doing such a thing -- from the point of view of research, this is a completely successful result... The White Paper was hardly a "research project," Kent. More than one bid was made for this contract. If ICANN can't perform, perhaps it should be put up for bids once again, the way other government contracts are run. Representation was called for. Representation is not being provided. This should be fixed, or the contract should go to someone else. Complaints of lack of funding or inadequate timeframe are irrelevant to nonperformance of a contract. ICANN has done some things quickly that have far reaching effect on the rights of individuals and small businesses to use the Internet. This was done without representation of the very groups who have been disproportionately impacted. Now, "technological roadblocks" have caused the same entity charged with "technical management of the Internet" to exclude people who wish to participate. This is a situation that should be remedied prior to any more major decisions being undertaken. I'm sure that Akamai, IBM, MCI, and other corporate interests represented on the Board would quickly come up with a solution if they were told that if they did not, the contract would be rebid.
[IFWP] Re: You are Turning Away Outside Members Who Attempt To Register
Esther - Given the overload with the server and the other technical issues, wouldn't it be prudent to extend the deadline for voter registration to give another chance to those who have been unable to access it?
Re: [IFWP] FWD: Extraterrestrials.com up for Auction
The marketplace in action Any response? -- ken I wouldn't mind if it wasn't spam. I received three spams advertising domain names for auction. I reported them to US West.
Re: [IFWP] That register.com commercial
I'm curious about something. Many of you have probably seen the register.com commericals, where they have people touting the domains they've registered (e.g., sisterearth.com, hydrowatts.com, thefabers.com). Checking the whois database, of course, reveals all these domains are actually owned by register.com. Particularly in the case of thefabers.com, what recourse would a family with the last name of Faber have against this blatant squatting? These domains that register.com are using are not tied to or representative of any 'product or service', except that they are domain names, and register.com sells domain names. Would someone have a case to take these domains away from register.com under the UDRP? What are the implications should the arbiters decide that register.com deserves to keep these names? Of course not. Register.com is a large company. Therefore, they will win under the UDRP. Don't you yet understand how this works?
[IFWP] RE: [ga] Fwd: ICANN prepares a Congressional fix with RickWhite' s GIP inspir...
At 2:20 PM +0200 10/12/99, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Roberto and everybody else, Roberto, it seems that you have not been paying very close attention. Rick White is not a member of the GA and as such cannot be nominated or elected in accordance with the DNSO bylaws and the procedure at www.dnso.org for the questionable election process. ??? Maybe I didn't pay attention - I already wrote to Mikki/Gordon that I might have missed something - but where is it written that the person to be nominated has to be a member of the GA? Hey guys, all I did was forward. Please write directly to Gordon. Thanks.
Re: [IFWP] date of new york times quote on esthers inter est indoing real work? and to hell with process??
Does anyone have the date and contest for this outstanding comment? In a recent New York Times article, Esther Dyson was quoted as saying "With all due respect, we are less interested in complaints about process" and more interested in "doing real work and moving forward." Santiago meeting. It was webcast.
[IFWP] Secret Drafting Committee
Andrew McLaughlin posted the following: Q: Who is on the drafting committee? A: The drafting committee consists of Louis Touton (ICANN counsel), Kathryn A. Kleiman (of the Association for Computing Machinery's Internet Governance Committee, a member of the DNSO Non-Commercial Domain Name Holders' Constituency, and co-founder of the Domain Name Rights Coalition), Steven J. Metalitz (General Counsel of the International Intellectual Property Alliance, a member of the DNSO Trademark, Intellectual Property, Anti-counterfeiting Interests Constituency), and Rita A. Rodin (of Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher Flom, retained by America Online, a member of the DNSO Registrars Constituency). These individuals were selected because of their legal drafting abilities and because they represent a diversity of viewpoints that spans individual, non-commercial, business, intellectual property, and registrar concerns and interests. Hopefully that will clear up who is on the committee. Given this information, I would like to make clear that although I am certain that Kathy continues to embody DNRC ideals and our mission, she is not speaking for DNRC in this matter. There is no representative for individual interests on this committee. The principles Kathy is pressing to the committee include: 1. The Internet is the most participatory marketplace of mass speech that this country and indeed the world has yet seen. Accordingly, protection of the openness and freedom of this speech must be the primary priority of Internet policy and protections. 2. No Internet policy should prevent individuals or businesses from using their full imagination and creativity to create and label products, services and content for the Internet. 3. Polices for the Internet must affirmatively and expressly set out protections for free speech and open communication as well as intellectual property protections. 4. Internet policies must protect and promote the development of new Internet products and services by entrepreneurs and small businesses. However, given the latest "turns in the law" governing domain names and trademarks, and the fact that there has never been any type of consensus in the Internet community for whether there should even BE a uniform dispute policy, this entire path is currently ill advised, especially since once again there is no representative for individual domain name holders' interests.
Re: [IFWP] PICS and domain names
Since Esther's at the global meeting for establishing mandatory net content ratings, and seems to be chafing a bit over it, I'd like to point something out: Domain names would probably have to be rated as well. Since Esther *is* at this conference, and is the de facto face of ICANN, shouldn't someone speak as an official representative of ICANN on these issues? I certainly don't want the enforcement of ratings on any content on the net, and I am certain I don't want it enforced based on domain names. Let's face it: The only reason anyone would want a global mandatory rating system is to enact filtering based on those ratings. If ICANN allows this to occur (and they might -- quite a bit of the money behind ICANN is also propping up this ratings effort), they will be in a position to become the arbiters of content on the Net. Since WG-C is concerned with the introduction of new gTLDs, we should be very wary of this effort. One could easily imagine a push to classify content based on gTLD. If you think .com's diluted and confusing now, you just wait until companies are told they must use a particular gTLD for a particular type of content. Everywhere you turn, there will be confusing, misleading, and/or meaningless .com entries, all in an effort to avoid the gTLDs created specifically to be filtered out. This cannot be overstated. Content restrictions and "copyright" violations will likely be the new vehicles for "making the net safe for e-commerce." Look at the make up of the Intellectual Property Constituency and the demands that copyright and other intellectual property rights be included in domain name issues. (How copyright can be included in domain name issues and individual domain name holders excluded is beyond me.)
Re: [IFWP] My nose
And the IP constituency has *invited* individual members. Those are "observers" and are not allowed to vote.
Re: [IFWP] Political Domain Name story
I suppose under the universal principle of justice you set forth below that if you didn't lock your house and somebody came in and stole your stuff, that you wouldn't consider it theft because, hey, you weren't prudent. Bad analogy. Your house is, by definition, yours. A character string belongs to no one. This is more like a land rush. First come, first served if you are prudent enough to take advantage of the opportunity pursuant to previously existing rights as clearly and specifically defined.
RE: [IFWP] News
Gordon Cook - ignorant and illiterate fool. Neurotic and obsessive. 'The only good ICANN is a dead ICANN' Hey, that's clever. So much for cutting out the fighting amongst ourselves, eh?
Re: [IFWP] Political Domain Name story
No argument from me. I've been trying to convince INTA for years (obviously with very limited success G). Someone please tell WIPO so we can all move on to something else? Tried to tell WIPO, but they don't have an alternate funding scheme in operation yet.
Re: [IFWP] Political Domain Name story
Ah! Nice to see a little humor here for a change! But we should be careful: they may line up the same list of contributors as did ICANN. Bill Lovell Then they'll be over 1/2 million in the hole for legal fees alone. Can't have that :-)
Re: [IFWP] Proposed by-law amendments
The most objectionable proposal is the amendment to Section 2(f) of Article VI-B of the Bylaws. This allows a vote of the ICANN Board to remove duly elected Names Council members from office. Even with a 3/4 majority requirement, I see no justification for placing such power in the hands of the Board, at the expense of the DNSO constituency. Constituencies can develop their own methods for removing or disciplining errant NC members. There is too much potential for discrimination and abuse in this provision, which allows the ICANN Board on its own motion to reach into a constituency and remove one of its elected members. What a marked contrast to the BWG and ORSC rules where board members could be removed. Has this become blatently obvious yet as to what is actually going on?
Re: [IFWP] ICANN's Internet Community - Fact and Fancy
Equally disturbing is why the Commerce Committee has refused to permit anyone to speak at their hearing who has the integrity and courage to say these things in public. The cover-up for ICANN continues. Gee, thanks
Re: [IFWP] Trademark Stupidity
At 11:47 PM 7/5/99 -0400, Bill Lovell wrote: Hey, you engineering wonks had first shot at the naming policy. It just didn't take US law into account so now we overbearing know-it-alls have to come in and clean up the mess. Diane Cabell http://www.mama-tech.com Fausett, Gaeta Lund Boston Hey, Diane! Well put! Wait a minute.where doesn't it take US law into account?
Re: [IFWP] Trademark Stupidity
I think Mr. Lovell was referring to the description of attorneys. I am referring to the fact that first-come, first-serve doesn't recognize trademark or other rights as they apply to the use/registration of words. dc But the law is not that they need to, which is similar to many other areas of naming things. Therefore, it seems to take US law into effect just fine. Any restrictions on *registration* would then be new law given that current law stops infringement on the Internet in the same way as it stops infringement in other media.
Re: [IFWP] Re: Anti-cybersquatting (Trademark Owners) ProtectionAct
I could stand education on why it is so critical to have a separate registration for taurus.com. So the astrologers can't have it, of course. Wouldn't want anyone diluting your trademark now would you? Consumers might become confused and ask their cars to do today's horoscope or something.
Re: [IFWP] Re: ISOC Smoke and Mirrors
And contrary to Jay, I am interested in seeing the process move forward. Somehow, Jay manages to provide constantly attacking notes that seek only to create delay (and spread misinformation.) Most of MY attacking notes try to CORRECT the misinformation of others. Oh please don't say those things when I'm drinking soda. It can get really painful when it goes out my nose from the hysterical laughter.
Re: [IFWP] Re: Is US govt hiding its role in ICANN to evade GotCorporate Control Act?
Ronda, The Committee on Science subcommittee on BASIC Research hearing on March 31 [1998] had some statement to the effect that the U.S. Govt officials couldn't set up a corporation like the FCC-Schools and Libraries Corporation. That this was in violation of the Government Corporation Control Act. Were the Green and White paper issued to try to go around that law? You have to go by 'the letter of the law.' It doesnt say USG cant simply give assets to a private corp, only that it cant *create* the corp to give them to. Conflict? What conflict? Doesn't that take Congressional approval?
[IFWP] Intellectual Property Constituency
DNRC was invited to a conference call of the Intellectual Property Constituency this morning. At this meeting, it was stated that individuals and organizations who wished inclusion could be given "observer" status and have access to conference calls and information regarding what was going on with the constituency. Since there is no "voting" per se being taken right now, status is largely irrelevant. If you wish to be included, please write to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Also, they are soliciting comments by July 4 on whether the WIPO proposals should be 1) broadened to include all commercial disputes, 2) mandatory or voluntary, 3) anything else you want to say about the constituency, plans for dispute policies, etc. The revised application for the constituency is on the ICANN website. Those comments should go to the same address above.
Re: [IFWP] Today's ICANN's Berlin Meeting (Wedesday)
I tired my best. You'll note that about 4:12 pm on wednesday I asked her to read them and she wouldnt. I don't think "having the scribes prepare summaries of the remote comments" counts as "remote participation". You are absolutely correct, Richard. Several people I know noticed that you did this and appreciated it. The first day's remote participation was very good, in my opinion. The second day was terrible. Of course, this is not to say that the job the Berkman Center did with arranging the remote participation. I know that many people (myself included) are very appreciative of the work done to make our participation possible. However, remote participation means exactly that. The summaries were not enough.
Re: [IFWP] Today's ICANN's Berlin Meeting (Wedesday)
Diane C wrote: I forgot to mention that the comments that come in from people listening to the webcasts are also read to the assembly. Only on the first day. On the second day, Esther promised several times that she would "get to" the written comments from the webcast, but she never really did. There was a passing few notices of the support for the Individual constituency, but VERY little mention of the serious opposition to the WIPO proposal provided by the webcast viewers.
[IFWP] RE: [dnsproc-en] 4th WIPO Panel of Experts member signs ICANN pet ition
I must reiterate that the reason that many of us signed the petition asking for more time prior to considering the WIPO proposal is not because ofthe proposal itself. Regardless of the final product, there is simply not enough time for thoughtful comments to be prepared. Further, the interim board should not be making these types of significant policy decisions. The procedure for bottom-up representation and decision making is the cornerstone of all process concerning ICANN. Procedurally, it is clear that the DNSO should make this recommendation to an elected board for determination. Membership issues in the DNSO (not to mention membership in ICANN itself) need to be determined. "Who gets to decide" is much more important than what is decided. The Internet is and has been "moving forward" despite (and possibly even because of) lack of extra-legal protections for trademarks and intellectual property. Any change to this "status-quo" must be carefully considered and opportunities for meaningful commentary and further input must be afforded. There is simply not enough time to allow this type of discourse under the current proposed timetable. There is no crisis that must be resolved. There is no need for speed. Information exchange and commerce are thriving on the Internet. Domain name registrations are increasing exponentially. The percentage of disputes is decreasing, not increasing. We have time to carefully consider the impact on the "cash cow" that the Internet has become, before making significant and far reaching changes to the current model. Mikki Barry President Domain Name Rights Coalition
Re: [IFWP] Time to lay out the hand
At 12:29 PM -0400 5/24/99, Dave Crocker wrote: So there are a few of us, purportedly experienced, grey-beards out here. ;-) That's why I said a few, rather than none. I believe there are far more than you might think, Dave. Many with vast experience are watching this process, but have not yet commented because, frankly, there is no need for them to do so as yet. No crisis exists. No great changes have been made, nor need to be made at this point. Many of us who have been involved with both the Internet and this process have been in constant contact with some of these players and have asked their opinions and advice. It is hardly as cut and dried as it may seem at first blush. Compared with the "population" of those active in this discussion, those with serious history or heavy current involvement in development or operations is tiny. Again, I feel it is larger than you may think. For most of those active, this is merely a nice theoretical exercise, or political opportunity, or... They do not have any experience in the Internet's style of decision making and they do not suffer from the delays they are causing. On the contrary, many are counseling restraint and careful consideration exactly BECAUSE they have experience in the Internet's style of decision making. We have 'running code' right now. There is no necessity to make changes with far reaching effect without consensus. Mikki Barry President Domain Name Rights Coalition
Re: [IFWP] Re: Time to lay out the hand
At 4:36 PM -0400 5/24/99, Esther Dyson wrote: Yes, we have been listening. We have been listening and thinking so hard we haven't always had time to respond. But you should see some reasoning as well as some results over the next few days. Esther Dyson Esther, while you have posted on several of these lists over the past months and have provided valuable information, I have yet to see the other Board members or the CEO add to these discussions. I am, unfortunately, unable to physically attend the Berlin meeting. I would appreciate it if you could pass on the wish for response, reasoning, and results on Internet mailing lists in the future. Thanks.
Re: [IFWP] ICANN and WIPO in Berlin
I echo Bret's concerns and agree with his suggested course of action. There is no urgency to take this action. I completely agree. It would take longer than the timeframe allocated to even provide coherrent comments on a report as dense and as far reaching as this one. There is definitely no impending necessity. Esther Dyson wrote: Thanks for your comments. AS noted, we have not yet decided what we will do. It indeed depends on public comments, among other things. But aside from our process, do you have any comments on the substance of the WIPO report? We would welcome those. Esther Yes, ICANN has noted that it "will take appropriate action, which may include seeking further comments on the recommendations, referring of some or all of them to other ICANN entities, and/or adopting certain of the recommendations." (http://www.icann.org/wipo/wipo.htm) But the point is that this is a very voluminous report that will have been published less than a month before the Berlin meeting. The possibilty that the Interim Board would take action that could include adopting certain of the recommendations was noted less than a month before the Berlin meeting. The individuals and companies that have been following this report through the drafting process are in the best position to assimilate it and provide comments on ICANN's schedule. But isn't the point of ICANN to seek consensus from the larger Internet community? That kind of consensus building takes longer than three weeks, and a fully constructed ICANN -- with three SOs and a General Membership -- will have the structure necessary to reach that consensus. I would ask that the Interim Board modify this announcement to take the possibility of adopting WIPO recommendations off the table. -- Bret
RE: Criterion for placement on the List (was Re: [IFWP] Standardfor being a famous mark)
A few isolated cases do not change the facts that the number of trademark disputes based on third and lower level domains is dwarfed by those associated with SLDs, and that no trademark holders' group has yet proposed that lower level domains be subject to dispute resolution procedures. You could basically say the same thing regarding ANY domain name disputes when you hold them up against the numbers of domain names that are registered and/or in use. The tiny fraction of disputes does not warrant the attention it's been getting. ICANN should stick to the technical administration and let the courts and legislatures create new laws. Most trademark holders (Viacom being the proverbial 'exception that proves the rule') would not consider trademark.sld.com worth their time. In most cases, they would never know about its existence - there are undoubtedly still hundreds of machines named 'picard' that remain undiscovered by Viacom. Many more trademark holders would consider a com/net/org SLD registration matching their trademark actionable. And that is part of the problem, isn't it? Registration of a domain name that matches a trademark is not and should not, in itself, be actionable.
Re: [IFWP] Re: Cato Institute forum on domain names ...
Greg Skinner said: I think you misunderstood the point of my post. I am not arguing that "trademark interests" ought to have protection. I was merely speculating that they might feel existing law does not offer them enough protection. Although I may have misunderstood, I still say that a group who feels that existing laws do not offer them enough protection should not then be able to circumvent that existing law through private corporations given "trusteeship" over an international resource. I am not a "trademark interest." I think Kerry should complain to the "trademark interests" if he feels that they are abusing the Internet. Many of us HAVE complained to the "trademark interests." They are not listening. See, for example, WIPO's latest report. See, for example, INTA's attempted capture of the IP constituency. Irrelevant to ICANN's mandate. ICANN's own web page ... does not say "creates policy for domain name usage" or "corporation formed to make decisions on who gets more protection, commerce or individuals." Again, you misunderstood my post. I was only pointing out to Kerry that ICANN is not the instigator of commerce in domain names. That happened long before ICANN showed up. ICANN is attempting to implement policy to "make the net safe for e-commerce." Unfortunately, this is being done at the expense of other intereests. As long as people look at the projected limitations on domain name usage and registration as "commerce vs. cybersquatters" you miss the big picture. Right, but this needs to be said to those people, NOT ME! I just use domain names to get access to Internet resources. I don't care what they're called -- if IBM was registered as mikki.barry I would still use it and not be confused. It has been said. Unfortunately, they are still not listening.
Re: [IFWP] Re: DOJ investigating NSI
At 07:29 AM 5/5/99 -0700, you wrote: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/business/daily/may99/nsi5.htm http://www.news.com/News/Item/0,4,36116,00.html?tt.yfin.txt.ni [I typed that last one in -- it's reachable from Yahoo's NSI news] Interesting thing is that NSI has been under investigation for some time. -- Kent Crispin "Do good, and you'll be [EMAIL PROTECTED] lonesome." -- Mark Twain So now all you folks who've said you've been denied a registration for whatever reason and then discover that the very name has suddenly become registered to someone else might bring up that matter as well. I've seen no evidence that NSI is dealing "under the table" as such scenario might suggest, so maybe you should try to find out. I've just received my fifth request from a potential client to assist him in exactly this type of thing. His theory is that someone is packet sniffing, not that NSI is doing something illegal. I don't have enough information to make a guess.
Re: [IFWP] Re: DOJ investigating NSI
At 01:20 PM 5/5/99 -0400, you wrote: Time to check out the Fed statutes regarding interception of communications. If the FBI can track down the Melissa author (um, with a little help) they certainly ought to be able to identify who is packet sniffing. One might hope. And you are perfectly correct: a packet sniffer could as well be doing what on the face looks like an NSI activity -- the exception being that on the premise that party A was turned down by NSI for name whatever.xxx, how would it be that the packet sniffer was able to get it? The previous complaints I've heard about have been people inquiring about the availability of a name, finding it was available, then attempting to register it and being told it is no longer available. Several of these were "coined" domain names, so it seems unlikely that someone could just decide to take [insert random string here].com so quickly after someone inquired about it. Another case consisted of an applicant receiving the acknowledgement that she had applied, then was told later that someone else got it just a few minutes before she sent in the application. A third was a .edu domain name request. In all of these cases, the party had inquired, there was a slight lag between the inquiry, (and notification of availability) and the attempted registration, and the name was registered by another (You be Scully and I'll be Mulder, okay?) :-) Sure. By coincidence, I do have short red hair, and am becoming convinced that NSI is an alien conduit whereby the DNS is being colonized by little green dollar signs :-)
Re: [IFWP] Re: Cato Institute forum on domain names ...
greg skinner said: >Kerry Miller wrote: > >> I believe its RFC 1591 that states that registering a domain name >> confers no legal rights to that name and that any disputes between >> parties over the rights to use a particular name are to be settled >> between the contending parties using existing legal methods. Why >> then should a *technical* administrative body be impelled to step >> into this picture, unless trademark interests are pushing it in order >> to 'externalize' their costs? > >I don't know. You would have to ask the trademark interests why >they have pushed for it. Perhaps they felt they needed more >protection. So if I feel that tomato growers need more protection, that's ok for ICANN to expand into as well? ICANN's mandate is technical, not policy making. Through this entire fiasco of "open, transparent and accountable" formation, we were told again and again that ICANN would not be conducting Internet governance. Yet giving protection to one group at the expense of another is precisely that. > >> Again, ICANN *could add its weight to the obvious way out -- the >> de-emphasis of DN as an advertising/ 'free speech' device, > >The emphasis of domain names as an advertising/free speech device did >not start with ICANN -- it started with people who decided to register >names for those purposes. I doubt it will matter if ICANN goes on >such a crusade. The people who want to use domain names in these ways >were around long before ICANN showed up, and will most likely be >around long after ICANN is history. Irrelevant to ICANN's mandate. ICANN's own web page says: "The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) is the new non-profit corporation that was formed to take over responsibility for the IP address space allocation, protocol parameter assignment, domain name system management, and root server system management functions now performed under U.S. Government contract by IANA and other entities." Note that says "domain name system management." That does not say "creates policy for domain name usage" or "corporation formed to make decisions on who gets more protection, commerce or individuals." >> and the enhancement of more accurate and contextually richer modes >> of navigation than a single 64-character string -- instead of plowing >> deeper into the mud. > >ICANN has nothing to do with this. That's the province of whoever is >designing such systems. My guess is those will experience the same >disputes domain names do now, when those systems mature. Like I >said before, there will always be people around who will try to make >an easy buck if they see an opportunity to do so and there are people >who will pay for the service. As long as people look at the projected limitations on domain name usage and registration as "commerce vs. cybersquatters" you miss the big picture. There are individuals, non profits, church groups, sewing circles, knitting clubs, small businesses and other who "feel they need more protection." The only difference is, they don't have lobbying groups or big bucks or corporate lawyers to push their views at the expense of others. Under US law, you have constitutional protections. Under ICANN there are no such protections.
Re: [IFWP] Re: Internet Governance?!
Jay wrote: For the most part, I agree with Tamar: "The Internet also must have a structure. The structure requires some governance--central authority to establish the rules of the game. The important decision is where to draw the line, and avoid standards that are not necessary for the creation of successful markets. Same issue is true of ICANN." (I would have also included "process" as a critically important decision.) In other words, I'm not opposed to some *limited* global standards, if they are necessary, and if they are set through some fair and defined process :-) Ditto. Unfortunately, the global standards are being pressed on us from all sides, and they are NOT being set through fair and defined process. Take, for example, the WIPO proceedings. It was clear in several of the open meetings that there was significant objection from many sides, including ACM (one of the world's largest technical organizations), the Asia/Pacific community, and disperate public policy organizations. I have not seen any of these objections incorporated into WIPO recommendations. Another example is the formation of the trademark constituency. INTA's newsletter this month speaks of the formation of the constituency being "voice for the IP community." This is an expansion of the original plans for examining cybersquatting. Further, the meetings for the formation of the constituency were reported even to INTA's membership, AFTER the fact (except for the Berlin meeting, which is mentioned in passing with no information given and no information listed in INTA's calendar of events at the end of their newsletter). There needs to be encouragement for all stakeholders interested in these issues to be heard AND listened to. The input being provided (when we are given notice of meetings, etc.) is the result of many years of technical and policy expertise on all sides of these issues. Constituencies need to be inclusive rather than exclusive. Individuals AND organizations need to have voices and votes. If ICANN is going to be a coherrent and harmonious structure, there has to be more enfranchisement of dissenting opinions, true incorporation of those opinions into the mix, and much LESS emphasis on global standards and MORE emphasis on what has made the Internet the great vehicle for speech and commerce that it now is. Hint: it wasn't built on global standards in any sense except the technical, and even there we had a few fun times (like x.400).
Re: [IFWP] Re: Internet Governance?!
Mikki Barry wrote: Constituencies need to be inclusive rather than exclusive. Individuals AND organizations need to have voices and votes. If ICANN is going to be a coherrent and harmonious structure, there has to be more enfranchisement of dissenting opinions, true incorporation of those opinions into the mix, and much LESS emphasis on global standards and MORE emphasis on what has made the Internet the great vehicle for speech and commerce that it now is. My prediction is that the constituencies will not be inclusive (e.g., individuals denied in one case, non IP interests in another) Instead, the constituencies will become lobbying groups by another name. Recognizing that development, it will be an easy feat for well-funded "crossover" groups such as ISOC to play the issues from many sides of the constituency fence--commercial, noncommercial, IP -- and for that much feared concept, capture by a special interest group, to take place. IMHO. Indeed, it has already happened.
[IFWP] Fwd: Reflections on NSI- A week later
Date: Sun, 28 Mar 1999 15:30:55 -0500 From: "Harold Feld" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Reflections on NSI- A week later Mime-Version: 1.0 Mikki, can you please froward. Well, it's been a week now, and I'll venture my own take. I haven't gotten any NSI money yet, although DNRC has sided with NSI on a number of compromise positions lately, which is damn funny, since we organized to fight NSI. Of course, individual members of us still do that for individual clients. First, I think those who argue that NSI has no right to do what it did under the cooperative agreement are rather naive about government contracting. Having lost my innocence at the Dep't of Energy, which for a tremendous amount of its history existed for the purpose of transferring wealth from the American taxpayer to private contractors, I can say that NSI's behavior isn't a patch on what goes on all the time. Quoting the literal language of the cooperative agreement as if it existed in a vacuum, without a well developed body of government contracting law and over five years of past practice at this point, is a waste of time and does little but demonstrate the inexperience of the commenter. Not saying this is wrong or right, mind you, just looking at the universe as it is (as I see it). I'll also point out that this isn't a unique deal for NSI. It is standard for the government to sponsor research with a private company that the private company gets to keep and market afterwards. There are some good public policy arguments for this, and arguments that it amount to little more than corproate welfare. The NSI case is somewhat more problematic because what has been created amounts to a bottleneck facility over a potentially lucrative business, and a kick-ass opportunity for branding. That being said, I find it unlikely that NTIA or ICANN can "do" anything about NSI. At the same time, I suspect NSI will probably back down. Why? Because NSI enjoys anti-trust protection as a government instrumentality (or so district courts in D.C. and NY have said). If NSI wins a court battle that its free from government control, what happens to that protection? Would you want to find out? Balancing the worth of the InterNIC page against the anti-trust protection, I'd back off and restore internic.net to its pristine form. So legally, NSI is probably o.k. From a strategic perspective, however, the move is dumber than dog-poo. One would think that NSI had suddenly had a brain transplant from US WEST or some other RBOC. Frankly, this is exactly the sort of strategy one has seen with RBOC and Cable modem deployment, the sort of thing Weirbach decried in his recent article, and the sort of thing that gets regulator and stakeholder dander up. (And the sort of market that the article Gordon circulated rightly notes with derision simply doesn't work in the Internet community). From where I sit, NSI has been trying to build up good will in the community for the last year and a half or so, doing things like participating on lists and going out to ISPCON and so forth. Putting a face on the nameless namer, as it were. Of course, there are folks who will hate NSI until their dying day, but the majority of folks in the business world (who do not labor under the religious convictions that everything in DNS must be pure of profit motive) recognize that NSI has generally done a reasonable job of keeping fees low ($70 bucks for a monopoly service is damn cheap, you pay more than that for your local phone hook-up or cable modem deployment) and scaling up with registrations. Well, this maneuver pretty much shot its good will efforts to Hell. It demonstrated for anyone willing to cut NSI a break that NSI is no more part of the "Internet Community" than Bell Atlantic or @Home. I consider this unfortunate, since the people I deal with routinely at NSI on this list and in the DNS debate do, I think, consider themselves part of the Internet community in a way that Bell Atlantic and @Home don't. So what can NSI do to atone for its sins? 1) NSI should restore the internic.net site to its original pristine form. 2) It should publicly apologize for acting in such a unilateral fashion with a net resource. 3) It should dedicate resources doing active listening for what the community would like to see, both in terms of NSI services and in terms of opening the .com, .org, and .net registries to competition. 4) based on he information gathered in (3) above, NSI should move to open its databases to real competition. Preferably, this should be done in concert with ICANN, but ICANN's involvement is not that important. Indeed, this can and should be a humbling lesson for everyone involved. No one has the power to dictate to the market, the community, or the significant players, what they can and can't do. We must work together in a genuinely cooperative manner or resign ourselves to a singular lack of forward progress. Handled properly, this
[IFWP] Fwd: Goods or Services?
Date: Mon, 29 Mar 1999 19:46:15 -0500 From: "Harold Feld" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Goods or Services? Mime-Version: 1.0 Mikki, please forward. O.K., let me toss out a different suggestion. A registry provides a service. It therefore has the right to set the terms of this service. The service provided is that it creates and maintains an entry in a table that states that a particular domain name resolves to a particular IP address. It also allows any server to point to this table and pull the relevant uinformation, so that the server knows how to resolve the name. This avoids the property question. I have a right to continued service provided I meet the conditions of service, so that the registry cannot arbitrarily take my space in the table and give it to someone else. So who "owns" a domain name? No one. It doesn't exist, except as an entry in a table. Alternatively, I "own" a domain name, but it is pretty useless unless a service provider agrees (i.e., a registry) agrees to list it. This avoids all of the logical inconsistencies that have had people chasing their tails trying to define the level of property interest. A domain name is not something tangible, and can never be resolved into something tangible. It is not even a right to do something at a particular time (like an FCC license) or permission to do something (like an FCC certificate as a common carrier). Heck, it isn't even the content of your web page. You still have that, even if your domain name is delisted. just that nobody else can find it. Rather, a domain name is a service, like my contract with my local phone company, that allows everyone to find me at my "POTS address" (i.e., my phone number). the logical implication of this is that the rights of the parties should be established by the service agreement. In a world where the registry is a monopoly (e.g., NSI) or a carefully regulated guild (e.g., CORE, ICANN), this screws the consumer, who has no bargaining power. In an openly competitive world, the consumer is served by its ability to select among competing registries. Harold Feld
[IFWP] plans for trademark constituency
Will someone be so kind as to inform us of the plans for the trademark constituency formation? Thank you.
Re: [IFWP] [Fwd: Yet another one]
Ellen Rony wrote: Dan Steinberg wrote: More evidence of reverse domain name hijacking: http://www.internetnews.com/rumblings/0,1145,81,00.html Cyberpiracy comes in two forms. One, which WIPO focuses on, has the trademark owner as the victim of the predatory behavior of unaffiliated and bad faith registrants. The other type, as in the example of HURRICANE.COM, reveals a legitimate domain name registrant as the victim of a trademark owner's poor business vision in waiting too long to recognize the market opportunities of the Internet. Absolutely. Add to this the trademark owner's bullying tactics, such as making threats to sue the domain name holder in trademark infringement, a complex field of law most domain name holders have no knowledge of, and have to hire specialists to deal with. Trademark owners, by definition, have knowledge of trademark law, or at least knowledge of a trademark attorney who may or may not have any awareness of the Internet or domain name law, and you have a problem at least as significant as the "trademark owner as victim" problem which is currently solved in large part by the NSI dispute policy.
[IFWP] From Harold Feld
Forwarding: Received: from cbxcs01wa ([172.16.128.131]) by cbxcs01wa; Sun, 07 Mar 1999 12:01:28 -0500 Received: from CB-Message_Server by cbxcs01wa with Novell_GroupWise; Sun, 07 Mar 1999 12:01:28 -0500 Message-Id: s6e26a98.069@cbxcs01wa X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 5.5 Date: Sun, 07 Mar 1999 12:01:28 -0500 Return-path: From: Mailer-Daemon@cbxcs01wa To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Message status - undeliverable Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=_C6911FCB.472648D3" The message that you sent was undeliverable to the following: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Transcript of session follows: HELO cbxcs01wa 501 HELO requires a valid host name as operand: 'cbxcs01wa' rejected from mail.cov.com remote address [208.225.145.131]: hostna503 MAIL FROM must be preceded by HELO/EHLO command. Possibly truncated original message follows: Received: from CB-Message_Server by cbxcs01wa with Novell_GroupWise; Sun, 07 Mar 1999 12:01:22 -0500 Message-Id: s6e26a92.068@cbxcs01wa X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 5.5 Date: Sun, 07 Mar 1999 12:01:16 -0500 From: "Harold Feld" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Proliferation of titles Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Disposition: inline First, let me say that ICANN is to be credited for its actions on the DNSO front. While I may not ultimately agree with the position taken, it is reassuring that the board appears to have actually thought about what they were doing and to try to reach some kind of compromise. A positive step. OTOH, there is an increasing title level of use going on here that is on the one hand absurd and on the other hand troubling. It is the use of titles of people working with ICANN and the ever increasing references to "staff" making recommendations and formulating positions. The reason it is absurd is that, given the nature of ICANN and its history, this seems quite pretentious. I simply must raise a quizical eyebrow when Molly Shaffer Van Houweling receives about three different titles over the course of a year, now culminating in "senior advisor" (I personally want "Lord High Grand Poobah" or "Delegate of the Lawyers Who Say NI!"). What is disturbing, however, is the way ICANN is constantly shaping itself as administrative agency. The use of "staff" to create policy recommendations and process information, the designation of everyone by title, with a title denoting hierarchial status, are all reflections of agency structure and mentality. When Apple first formed, the board and managers treated titles as a joke. People went around with business cards saying things like "Wizard Behind the Curtain" and "Software Ghod". As the organization ossified (and become less effective), it started insisting that its employees act "professionally." Real titles, connoting real things, came in. With this
Re: [IFWP] From Harold Feld
would love to read the rest of this My mistake, Esther. That's what I get for forwarding without reading. I will forward it as soon as I get the rest from Harold if he his access to posting hasn't been fixed by then. Thanks for your patience.
Re: [IFWP] Singapore Update
Karl's claim has a specific, concrete, non-metaphysical meaning, in the context of the trademark constituency in particular. If there is to be a trademark constituency, why not also a free expression constituency? The DNRC, and individual domain name holders and advocates such as Karl and myself are very real, non theoretical entities. We have participated actively in the process. We are not ghosts or figments of your imagination. We have put forward specific, real proposals: to have individual memberships or, if that is not possible, to at least balance the constituencies. Why hasn't this happened? The answer to the "why not" is simple: The TM interests have more time and money to spend on this, and they have courted (and been courted by) other key participants in the dnso process to form an alliance which guarantees each other representation while excluding others who might challenge or threaten their dominance. Political relationships can indeed be "complicated," but as someone who studies them for a living I can tell you that this one is not complicated at all. Since DNRC has an interest in the interaction between trademarks and domain names, i have asked whether we will be included in the formation of the "trademark constituency" seemingly being formed by INTA. I have not yet received a response. Just an FYI.
Re: [IFWP] hypocrisy (was: Time out....)
On Thu, Feb 25, 1999 at 10:12:18PM -0500, Mikki Barry wrote: Kent Crispin said: Not so. The fact is that there are many people like me in the IAHC/POC/CORE arena that fund this activity entirely on their own dime -- sometimes tens of thousands of dollars. The CORE registrars have a monetary stake in this, it is true. But the IAHC/POC is composed of volunteers with no financial stake. Of course, there are many of us like me who are not members of IAHC/POC/CORE who have no monetary stake whatsoever who are funding this activity also on our own dime. Just trying to point out that there are many on both sides of the issue who are not subsidized by anyone. Ask NSI for travel money. Why?
[IFWP] Fwd: USG has no power over NSI?
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 07:28:53 -0500 From: "Harold Feld" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Fwd: USG has no power over NSI? Mime-Version: 1.0 Can you forward to IFWP? Thanks. Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 18:51:59 -0500 From: "Harold Feld" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: USG has no power over NSI? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Disposition: inline I find Dave Crocker's statement that the USG has no power over NSI incredible. Dave, do you believe that NSI submitted to ICANN jurisdiction (before it was even settled what the shape would be, essentially buying a pig in a poke) and agreed to open its databases because it *wanted* to do so? As I recall, there was significant buzz on the Net regarding the lengthy negotiations between NSI and Commerce as September 30 approached and then passed. Clearly Commerce exercised considerable power over NSI and forced various contract concessions. Incidentally, the difficulty with the term "monopoly" is that it is necessary to define the relevant market. For example, Empire Kosher has a monopoly on kosher poultry, but DOJ and FTC do not consider it a "monopoly" because it defines the market as all poultry and "kosher" is simply a gourmet segment. At the moment, NSI has a monopoly on gTLDs, and is dominant player (but not a monopoly) in domain names. It is unclear what the relevant market should be. POC/CORE/etc. have consistently defined "monopoly" on a TLD by TLD basis, thus the need to have a shared registry to eliminate the monopoly. I (and other supporters of proprietary TLDs) think this is to narrow a market definition. This is like defining the market as "Coke" rather than as "soda" or even "cola." Even if it is a monopoly, it is unclear what the appropriate remedy should be. You seem unsatisfied with any solution that leaves NSI has anything other than a smoking crater. This is both extreme and presents a potential takings problem. (That the government has the power to prevent monopolistic practices and cause divestitutres does not give it unlimited authority.) The solution Commerce has inmplemented is based on the "unbundling" approach utilized by the Telecom Act of 1996. NSI is being forced to unbundle its registration services in the same way the RBOCs are theoretically being forced to unbundle their network elements. This approach also worked well in the natural gas market and the electric market. Whether you think it is the correct approach is a point that can be argued, but it overstates the case to the point of absurdity to say that USG has not, and therefore cannot, taken steps to terminate the existing NSI monopoly on .com, .org, and .net. Harold
Re: [IFWP] Re: DNS internationalization
And if he was liable for infringement and misappropiation, he would have admitted that to you. The critical mind at work. You were talking about the "facts" Martin, not speculation, or your own bias. The FACTS are that Adam Curry told me the same thing that Milton stated. If MTV wanted an Internet presence, why wouldn't they have registered mtv.com? If Adam Curry had wanted to "infringe" or "misappropriate" why would he have registered mtv.com while STILL an employee of MTV? The factual mind at work.
Re: [IFWP] Re: DNS internationalization
I would rather you go to the Southern District's warehouse in Kearny, NJ and actually read the record in this case before you presume to lecture us on what the facts really were. In truth, Milton's account is exactly on track with that Adam Curry told me directly. At 05:13 PM 2/25/99 -0500, you wrote: Martin B. Schwimmer wrote: As one of the lawyers who participated in the representation of MTV in that case, I would say that that particular genie was let out of the bottle the day Adam Curry registered mtv.com in his own name and began promoting a music website under the name mtv.com (and not adam-curry.com). What he doesn't tell you is that Adam Curry did this while working as a DJ for MTV and with MTV's knowledge. MTV didn't give a damn until Adam Curry had created some value and visibility to the site and the Internet craze began to take shape. AFTER they discovered value that they hadn't created, then, suddenly, the character string was their property. And they had more money and were bigger, and there are always people like Schwimmer around who will do their bidding if the price is right, so they got the name. --MM "And remember, MTV is lying to you." -Fishbone
Re: [IFWP] hypocrisy (was: Time out....)
Kent Crispin said: Not so. The fact is that there are many people like me in the IAHC/POC/CORE arena that fund this activity entirely on their own dime -- sometimes tens of thousands of dollars. The CORE registrars have a monetary stake in this, it is true. But the IAHC/POC is composed of volunteers with no financial stake. Of course, there are many of us like me who are not members of IAHC/POC/CORE who have no monetary stake whatsoever who are funding this activity also on our own dime. Just trying to point out that there are many on both sides of the issue who are not subsidized by anyone.
[IFWP] Fwd: How is ICANN (Un)Like an Aquarium?
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1999 16:08:42 -0500 From: "Harold Feld" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Fwd: How is ICANN (Un)Like an Aquarium? Mime-Version: 1.0 Mikki, can you please froward this? I am getting a bounce from [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1999 16:05:22 -0500 From: "Harold Feld" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: How is ICANN (Un)Like an Aquarium? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Disposition: inline Greg Skinner writes: It's too bad that ICANN can't be set up like the Monterey Aquarium. They got some seed money from a major company (I forget which) for a fixed period of time, after which they were told they were on their own. They're still around, and seem to be doing quite well. They perform a variety of services, and are entrusted, to a certain extent, with resources that have value to concerned parties, so their situation is analogous to ICANN's. Unfortunately, the situation is not analogous. Unlike ICANN, no one really cares if the Aquarium is "captured" by its corporate patrons. Those who have chosen to entrust the acquarium with resources did so after the acquarium proved itself, and have alternatives in the event the acquarium proves untrustworthy. This is the real problem I have with those who have advocated that ICANN should run under the rules of a traditional business or non-profit, rather than under more stringent rules of openness usually applied only to governments (or, as Mike Nelson put it in Boston, if the Red Cross doesn't operate under these procedures, why should ICANN?) ICANN controls the bottleneck facilities of the Internet. I can do without the Aquarium, if I don't like its sponsors or exhibits or policies. I can get blood from hospitals without worrying about the Red Cross. But I will be unable to get a domain name or an IP address without encountering a mandatory ICANN contract via my name registrar or ARIN (or whoever sells it to me second or third hand). It's not like the world lacks for models. For example, this past week I dealt with the frequency coordinator for the UHF band in southern california. This is a person that licensees in the band agree should make sure that frequency usage is properly coordinated so that there is no interference (ever wonder how the media circus surrounding a major sporting event functions smoothly, along with everybody's headsets, radios, etc. It takes a lot of work.) This is a for-profit service (frequency coordinators take a fee) and has no official standing within the FCC (some frequencies have more formally recognized freq. coordinators, where the FCC requires approval of the freq. coordinator before it will consider an application). Why does this model work? Many reasons. One of the primary reasons it works is because the end result, freq. coordination, is seen as in everyone's best interest. Nor is the job of the freq. coordinator to make decisions regarding policy. Freq. coordinators do not require new services to demonstrate they will "enhance broadcasting" or that they will protect broadcasters' copyrights. When freq. coordinators want a policy change (as happened in the 800 MHz some years back), they take it to the Commission rather than implementing it themselves. The recent ICANN proposed certification requirements make it clear that ICANN considers itself a policy-formulating body, not merely a technical standards or coordinating body. Otherwise, requirements as to business model (e.g., name portabilty) or protecting policy interests (e.g., exclusion of famous names) would not be a part of the certification requirements. Given that ICANN sits on the Internet bottleneck facilites, names and numbers, issues such as funding and representation take on tremendous significance. Harold
Re: [IFWP] Market Structure Failure
On Mon, Feb 22, 1999 at 01:14:54PM -0500, Mikki Barry wrote: As the usage, registering a name in DNS is a use of the name. Please provide a case site. The only cases I've read on the subject hold exactly the opposite. The only cases even close to that state that the offer for sale of a domain name could be a commercial use. and not the mere existance of identical character strings as IP number identifiers is the real issue, this is indeed an attempt to re-engineer the DNS to conform with policy, and not with technical matters. "re-engineer"? are we changing how resource records are used? are we changing the caching mechanism? are we changing the meaning of the time-to-live field? as far as I know, the only work to reeingineer dns takes place in the IETF working groups devoted to the topic... Some would say that changing the mechanism by which one registers a domain name (to provide for exclusions, or to mandate trademark like searches, etc.) would be a "re-engineering" of the DNS system. I agree with that.
Re: [IFWP] Market Structure Failure
See the Glaxo-Wellcome case from the UK, the Payline case in France, and the Orkin case from Canada and see if that changes your view. These rights regard protection of the trademark right, they do not "exist solely with regard to the USAGE of the domain name." In the US they do, and last I heard, international laws have not yet amended the Lanham Act. In any event, no one denies that there are defenses to tm infringement, and no one other than NSI advocates any type of proceeding that limits the DN owner's right to assert defenses, so your listing of the various defenses to infringement is besides the point. That doesn't address the main point that domain name holders have legitimate rights besides those that may be grounded in trademark or unfair competition torts.
Re: [IFWP] Market Structure Failure
On Mon, Feb 22, 1999 at 02:59:30PM -0500, Mikki Barry wrote: On Mon, Feb 22, 1999 at 01:14:54PM -0500, Mikki Barry wrote: As the usage, registering a name in DNS is a use of the name. Please provide a case site. The only cases I've read on the subject hold Do you mean "case cite" as in "citation"? There is no need to provide such a citation -- registration in DNS is a "use" on its face -- if nothing else, it's use is to prevent someone else from using the name for some other purpose. Again, "use" in the legal sense is NOT mere registration, and this point has been hammered home over and over in US cases. [...] Some would say that changing the mechanism by which one registers a domain name (to provide for exclusions, or to mandate trademark like searches, etc.) would be a "re-engineering" of the DNS system. I agree with that. Some would be using the phrase "re-engineering of the DNS" in a truly idiosyncratic way, then. The mechanism of registering a name is completely separate from the operation of the DNS. DNS works fine without any registration mechanism whatsoever -- when I assign domain names to hosts on my network there is no registration involved... Wonderful! I guess this means that we don't need any of these pre-emptive registration impediments for technical reasons. So why are we arguing about it at all? I only regret it's taken so long to get to this point.
Re: [IFWP] Market Structure Failure
These three cases you cite are not on point because they weren't disputes between two REGISTERED trademark owners. I'm asking if trademark owners feel they have priority rights to domain names in cyberspace over common law marks and other legitimate users, why they don't apply the seniority rights dictum in cyberspace, too? And why two owners of identical marks (say "Juno") don't have a slugfest over which rights should prevail, say, between the earliest one to challenge a domain name registrant (thus claiming rights to the domain name) and the one who possesses the earliest trademark issue date. The reason why these are so rare is simple. The VAST majority of trademark holders have no Internet presence. Many of them do not even know how to obtain an Internet presence. Despite the claims of INTA to "speak for all domain name holders" the truth is that the percentage of domain name holders in their ranks is very small. As more businesses with trademarks "wake up" to the Internet's existance, these disputes may become more prevalent, as will the number of users of domain names who are challenged despite their longevity, by trademark holders. I'm just pointing out the inconsistencies in this botched approach to conflicts over names. This is just another reason that I believe NSI's trademark registration bias is fundamentally flawed and should be scrapped. Absolutely. Unfortunately, its proposed replacement, the WIPO policy is worse. See Professor Fromkin's analysis.
RE: [IFWP] Re: Re[2]: Domain dispute hits earth
Well, the allegation has been made that on-going businesses are threatened with extinction when NSI sends the 37-day letter, in which case it would make sense to get together the court filing fees and about a $1000 in legal fees to file a declaratory judgment complaint with pendant tort claims (i.e. malicious prosecution). If it is merely a $70 investment, then, no, it doesn't make economic sense, they just sell the name to the entity to whom it is worth more. The Cato Institute would endorse such allocation of resources. Free speech rights are only "worth" something if it's an on-going business? It's ok to lose a right because you can't afford to fight for it, in the face of incorrect accusations and bullying by people with more money? "Sell" the name to the entity when an offer to sell is currently looked on as "proof" of cyberpiracy? "Sell" the name when it's "on hold" and useless? Oh please. Let's get back to the reality of what is happening when an innocent party's domain name is reverse hijacked.
RE: [IFWP] Re: Re[2]: Domain dispute hits earth
Carl Oppedahl wrote: What is the domain name holders burden in a filing like that? Typically a few tens of thousands of dollars. Which is exactly why pseudo.org may lose their domain name. The non-infringing non-commercial domain name holder can't afford tens of thousands of dollars. The reverse domain name hijackers have very little downside. All they need do is claim infringement (even though there is NO analysis in the US that supports the claim, and they know it) and he domain name holder's only recourse is to spend tens of thousands in legal fees that generally aren't shifted back to the reverse hijacker in court. WIPO's policy wouldn't be any better. And people wonder why individuals and small business domain name holders need representation.
Re: [IFWP] Timely decisions
For the WMB application (In the interests of avoiding possible Intellectual Property entanglements I shall use "WMB" from now on, instead of "BMW" :-)) we have the following submitters: ITAA -- 11000 members INTA -- 3200 members, 113 countries EuroISPA -- Largest ISP association in the world ICC -- 7000 members, 63 countries AILPA -- over 1 members ISOC -- 6000 members, 150 countries WITSA -- International Consortium of organizations ECE -- New European organization just started w/ support of european commission CORE -- 85 registrars, 23 countries POC -- represents 200+ MoU Signatories Sorry, but when an organization does not ASK its membership for its opinions on an issue it cannot claim to represent them.
Re: [IFWP] Timely decisions
On Sat, Feb 13, 1999 at 08:42:16PM -0500, Mikki Barry wrote: Sorry, but when an organization does not ASK its membership for its opinions on an issue it cannot claim to represent them. A vast generality that can't possibly be true. Your congressperson can legitimately claim to represent you, even though they don't ask your opinion on every thing they vote on. Big difference between an governmental official, elected by the populace, and a membership organization that claims to "speak for" vast numbers of people, yet never either asks them their view, nor produces their draft views for membership comment prior to statements.
Re: TM v. DNS?
Any rules which automatically require a user to ceritify they will not use this name to violate a trademark is a violation of their fundamental rights. That would be the fundamental right to violate other people's rights? How can use of a character string that someone else just happened to trademark, when used for a non commercial or other non infringing purpose, possibly be a violation of rights? Why should a trademark holder feel they have a "right" to control any and all uses of a character string above and beyond what any laws grant them?
Re: [ifwp] NSI Domain Name Dispute Stats
Indicating the intended use would minimize the pokey.org/veronica.org scenarios. Very doubtful. In pokey, veronica, AND pseudo, the corporations involved were informed that the uses were non commercial and non infringing. In both pokey and veronica, it was not until the press was informed and the public got annoyed that the corporations backed off. In pseudo, the corporation's lawyer has been informed, and his response, so far, has been "we're not reverse hijacking. You're infringing. We'll give you $100.00 for the address." I very much doubt that many of these corporations would back off knowing that the domain name holders were not infringing. Many feel that they have a right to the name, regardless.
Re: [ifwp] NSI Domain Name Dispute Stats
I understand the situation very well, Mikki. What I was working towards was a useful series of responses from C. Gomes that could be used as evidence for your thesis. I won't be able to elicit those statements from him if you cram the answers down his throat. Please try to hold back a little. NSI knows the situation very well. NSI's dispute policy is the least of our problems at this point (although it most definitely is a problem).
[ifwp] Re: Constituencies / Membership
At 4:18 PM -0500 1/31/99, Einar Stefferud wrote: It is quite amazing to me that people seem to not be reading what I proposed for 10 constituencies. I continue to see statements that NO contituency proposals include ANY PUBLIC INTEREST SEGMENT. And yet, my 10 contituency proposal clearly does include one;-)... I'm sorry Stef. I should have been more clear. I meant of the current full blown drafts out there, none include a public interest segment. Your constituency proposal is certainly interesting. I would prefer it to any proposals besides flat membership. Also, I must say that I am equally interested on the NO Constituency model and the MANY CONSTITUENCY model, but not interested in anything in between. I am not welded to either proposal, but if we are going to have any constituencies, then I claim we need many. Agreed. __ To receive the digest version instead, send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To SUBSCRIBE forward this message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNSUBSCRIBE, forward this message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Problems/suggestions regarding this list? Email [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___END
[ifwp] Re: [dnsproc-en] This week's Reality Check
Without even going into any of the personal and professional attacks against the Syracuse Study, it is quite clear that if this were the ONLY evidence of trademark interests gone overboard, it may not be enough to be convincing. However, there have been no other studies brought forth that refute that the large majority of trademark v. domain name interests are NOT infringment cases, and are NOT "cybersquatting" cases. My own personal experience of 3 to 4 requests for help per week by telephone and/or email yields at least 2 where trademark holders are attempting to reverse hijack the domain name. Yet the issue of reverse hijacking is not addressed by any WIPO study, or by anything I've seen from INTA (despite INTA's claim that it "speaks for all domain name holders"). The most recent call for help came from the holder of "pseudo.org." She is allowing me to reveal that information to the public. Pseudo is a common word used by the domain name holder for her personal calendar, yet the trademark holder is claiming infringement and dilution regardless of the non commercial nature of the site. Cases of dilution, infringement, and "cybersquatting" are won by the trademark holder. Thus, there is no need for "extra-legal" special privilege for trademark holders. So even regardless of the personal/professional attacks on Milton Mueller and his study, there is still no evidencce that greater rights be given to trademark holders on the Internet than they receive in any other media. __ To receive the digest version instead, send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To SUBSCRIBE forward this message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNSUBSCRIBE, forward this message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Problems/suggestions regarding this list? Email [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___END
[ifwp] Re: CORRECTION (was Re: Membership Models)
On Sun, 24 Jan 1999, Eric Weisberg wrote: The Domain Name Rights Coalition was thrown off the IFWP steering committee because it was not incorporated despite the fact that it was an organizer of the "entity." We did not like that exercise before, what will make it more paletable, now? This is simply not true. It never happened. As I recall I participated in all of the oh-too-many steering committee conference calls and all of the face to face meetings. Nobody was ever thrown off the IFWP steering committee for any reason. DNRC was one of the original organizers of the entity that organized the first meeting in Reston, renamed IFWP. NSI was also one of the original organizers. DNRC was later not allowed to be on teh IFWP steering committee because we were not a 501(c)(3). When we fought for inclusion as an incorporated non-profit, we were allowed back onto the steering committee. __ To receive the digest version instead, send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To SUBSCRIBE forward this message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNSUBSCRIBE, forward this message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Problems/suggestions regarding this list? Email [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___END
[ifwp] RE: Who is it that needs trademark protection?
there is a lot of talk about the "public interest" on these lists. The public interest here has come to mean the rights of DN holders to not get sued by the (pause for demonization effect) TM interests. That is rather disingenuous IMHO. Public interest to me means that the right of freedom of expression will not be abridged on the Internet any further than it is in the physical world. This includes choice of domain name. Another public interest that seldom gets advocated here is the right of the public to be protected from porn sites which use the trademarks of others to generate traffic. That, to me, is not a PUBLIC interest. That is a trademark interest. All cases I have seen where pornographic sites who were using trademarks have resulted in the trademark owner winning. Do you have cases that came out the other way, Martin? Yes, an international treaty will mean something because then the mechanism of enforcement will not be jawboning by NTIA but will be the law. We already HAVE laws. Whose laws would the international treaty encompass? What enforcement would you advocate? Each country already has laws, generally enacted by elected representation in one form or another, with checks and balances, and keeping the individual idiosyncracies of the specific country in mind? We've already seen the inherrent problems with WIPO's attempt to internationalize copyright laws (http://www.epic.org/privacy/copyright/wipo-alert-698.html. As founder of an Internet software company, I agree with what EPIC has said on this issue. Richard, I'm not blaming you personally for the prevalence of kiddie porn or bestiality on the Internet. p.s. People like porn and no regulatory mechanism will prevent it. I have no illusions that identity verification and other procedures would ever do much more than slightly dent illegal activities of that nature. Pornography is in the laws of the beholder's country. Something that may personally offend you might be perfectly allowable in another country. Those things can't be harmonized across countries. In some ways, it's similar to trademark law :-) __ To receive the digest version instead, send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To SUBSCRIBE forward this message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNSUBSCRIBE, forward this message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Problems/suggestions regarding this list? Email [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___END
[ifwp] Re: Constituencies
At 6:04 AM -0500 1/13/99, Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote: At 12:01 AM 1/13/99 -0800, Karl Auerbach wrote: Look at the DNSO propsal a la ORSC http://www.dnso.net/library/dnso-orsc.proposal.shtml To whit: The Domain Name Supporting Organization (DNSO) shall be composed of any individual, firm, association, corporation or other entity who is the holder of a second level domain (SLD) in any top level domain (TLD) (Hereinafter "Domain Name Holder"). I'd suggest amending that to be ... "holder of one or more second level domain(s) (SLD)..." Where in here does it not cover that case? I asked that question myself, when this came up in the ORSC list. This covers both COM/NET/ORG type TLDs and ccTLDs. Hmmm, it may be a bug. Mikki, can you check this? I seem to recall slightly different wording that covered the ccTLD case. The ccTLD wording was discussed, but I don't think there was time to come to consensus on the wording. The intent, of course, is not to excluse anyone who holds a domain name in any gTLD or ccTLD (regardless of its structure) and that regardless of how many domain names you hold, you get one vote. __ To receive the digest version instead, send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To SUBSCRIBE forward this message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNSUBSCRIBE, forward this message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Problems/suggestions regarding this list? Email [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___END
[ifwp] Re: Techo-speak, allowed by M. Sondow?
I dunno, but I'm planning on showing up with my touring rig. If it's not open, I'll file suit in the appropriate jurisdiction and venue (probably where I an refused entry g). For an encore, plan on playing "Take Five" in all keys. The ability to do same can be used as technical criteria for admission g, along with posting a $500,000 bond and 24/7 operation g. Dan Steinberg Hey! You're excluding the audience! You can't DO that! There needs to be representation from the audience in the band. How DARE you say that because I can only play a C scale in one octave on a badly tuned guitar that I am not allowed to play? :-) __ To receive the digest version instead, send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To SUBSCRIBE forward this message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNSUBSCRIBE, forward this message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Problems/suggestions regarding this list? Email [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___END
[ifwp] Re: Secret Meetings
It's obvious, however, from the continual "cc's" to the "bwg-n-friends" list in Mikki's messages that things were being decided on the closed bwg-n-friends list as far as the ORSC draft was concerned. Most of Mikki's draft just appeared on the ORSC list -- the comments from the ORSC list are only a small part of the text. Therefore, I think it is safe to say that the ORSC draft was developed through a closed process, with some window dressing interaction on the so-called "open" ORSC list. Uh, excuse me? Most of the commentary on the draft was from the quite open ORSC list. If you wish to discredit the draft, Kent, you'll have to try harder than that. __ To receive the digest version instead, send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To SUBSCRIBE forward this message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNSUBSCRIBE, forward this message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Problems/suggestions regarding this list? Email [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___END
[ifwp] Re: Secret Meetings
On Sat, Jan 09, 1999 at 01:18:01AM -0500, Richard J. Sexton wrote: Not form my observation. BWG was cc'd as a courtesy. Poepel simply kept the cc line. So you say. And so says the editor of the draft. Nothing gets decided on the BWG list. So you say. I agree the foul stencg of secret deals from IAHC days still lingers, but you're on a witch hunt Kent. Something you should be very familiar with, I must admit. So much for working together for the common good of the Internet. Is there any possible way we can stop the sniping and maybe start being more productive? __ To receive the digest version instead, send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To SUBSCRIBE forward this message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNSUBSCRIBE, forward this message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Problems/suggestions regarding this list? Email [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___END
[ifwp] Re: Secret Meetings
On Sat, Jan 09, 1999 at 09:02:17AM -0500, Mikki Barry wrote: I agree the foul stencg of secret deals from IAHC days still lingers, but you're on a witch hunt Kent. Something you should be very familiar with, I must admit. So much for working together for the common good of the Internet. You're right -- phrases like "foul stench" and "witch hunt" aren't very productive, are they? There have been LOTS of phrases that have not been very productive. No one person seems to be the main perp. Is there any possible way we can stop the sniping and maybe start being more productive? I doubt it -- mindless sniping about open vs closed meetings/lists seems absolutely entrenched. I just thought I would join in on the fun. It's not fun IMHO. I'd really like to get on with getting some work done. __ To receive the digest version instead, send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To SUBSCRIBE forward this message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNSUBSCRIBE, forward this message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Problems/suggestions regarding this list? Email [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___END
[ifwp] Re: How not to self-govern
+ AFAIC, they [trademark interests] are the single largest force, against human rights, on the planet. This list is either the primary open discussion of an experiment in Internet self-governance, or it is street corner filled with lunatics shouting at each other (and will deserve as much political credibility as such a street corner). The demonization has gone far enough - if you don't support this level of hate-filled rhetoric, step forward and say so now. Which hate-filled rhetoric would that be? The one saying that trademark interests are curtailing human rights, or the one saying that those who wish to temper trademark interests are engaged in "histeronics" and "exclusion?" Just looking for clarification. Thanks :-) __ To receive the digest version instead, send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To SUBSCRIBE forward this message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNSUBSCRIBE, forward this message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Problems/suggestions regarding this list? Email [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___END
[ifwp] Comments to the DNSO proposals
After examining the two proposals that have been presented on the DNSO.org website, we felt that rather than submit disjointed commentary, that we would instead submit a full proposal as our vision of a better set of by-laws. This set of by-laws is the result of open commentary on several mailing lists, and is the work of many individuals who took the time to read and make suggestions for change.
This document is far from perfect, and is still subject to change by open process. It is hoped that the DNSO.org group reviews it carefully, and incorporates it into the discussions.
January 5, 1999
PROPOSAL FOR
DOMAIN NAME SUPPORTING ORGANIZATION
Under Article VI, Section 3(b) of the By-Laws of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Name sand Numbers ("ICANN"), an application for recognition as a Supporting Organization shall include, but not be limited to, a description of the following:
i. membership or participation criteria,
ii. methods for developing substantive Internet policies to be recommended to the Board and selecting Board nominees,
iii. open, transparent, fair and non-discriminatory cooperation and consensus-building processes (including procedures for public attendance at appropriate meetings of the Supporting Organization and for the participation of interested persons who may not be members of the Supporting Organization in advisory committees of the Supporting Organization),
iv. policies to ensure international and diverse participation,
v. policies for disclosure to the Corporation by members of or participants in a Supporting Organization council of conflicts of interest or other financial interests in matters within the scope of the Supporting Organization (such conflicts or interests, however, not necessarily requiring abstention from action), and
vi. methods for funding the Supporting Organization and providing funding for the Corporation (consistent with Article IV, Section 2 of these By-Laws).
ARTICLE I NAME
The name of this organization shall be "The Domain Name Supporting Organization."
ARTICLE II OBJECTIVES
The DNSO Objectives shall be:
To coordinate the root zone by
Generation of a coherent DNS root zone
Encouraging TLD disputants to resolve their differences
Overseeing operation of the root servers
The goal of the DNSO is to fulfill these purposes using the following governing principles:
Fairness: The DNSO will strive to treat all parties fairly.
Diversity: The DNSO will foster and respect diversity of opinions.
Consensus: The DNSO will work towards rough consensus on all issues.
Stability: The DNSO will maintain stability in the DNS root zone.
Coherence: The DNSO will strive to create and maintain coherence across the entire DNS root zone
Openness: The DNSO will conduct all of its business in an open manner.
Security: The DNSO will foster security in the DNS root zone.
ARTICLE III MEMBERSHIP
1. Classes
The Domain Name Supporting Organization ("DNSO") shall be composed of any individual, firm, association, corporation or other entity who is the holder of a second level domain (SLD) in any top level domain (TLD) (Hereinafter "Domain Name Holder.")
2. Method of Election
Any Domain Name Holder shall become a member of the DNSO upon submission of an informational membership form and payment of the membership dues.
3. Methods for funding the DNSO
The DNSO shall obtain funding from membership dues levied on its members. The total annual dues of all members shall be determined by the Names Council but shall in no case be greater than $50.00 US per year. New members' dues liability shall commence on the first of the month next following receipt of its application for membership, and its dues shall be pro-rated from that date to the end of the calendar year. No member shall have the right to vote until it has paid its dues in full. The annual dues of all members for each calendar year shall be due and payable before the second of February of that year. Notice to this effect shall be sent via electronic mail to the electronic mail address on record, to each member whose dues remain unpaid at the end of thirty days thereafter.
Any member whose annual dues remain unpaid 30 days after February 2 shall be deemed to be delinquent and the rights of such members as members shall cease forthwith. Written notice to that effect shall be sent promptly to such member, and any member whose dues remain unpaid on March 1 shall be dropped automatically from membership and promptly notified thereof. Members who have been so dropped may re-apply for membership on payment of any delinquency, and such application will be handled in accordance with Section 2 of this Article.
4. Resignations
Any member may resign its membership at any time by giving written notice thereof to the Names Council, accompanied by payment of any outstanding indebtedness to the DNSO. Said resignation shall take effect as of its date unless some other date is specified therein. The acceptance of
[ifwp] Re: Carl Oppedahl's wild estimates (was Re: Further analysis of MMs trademark study)
Carl Oppedahl says: The vast majority of domain name disputes that I have seen (and I have seen dozens in detail and hundreds in general terms) are nothing like real trademark cases. They are cases where somebody covets another domain name, has no real legal claim over it, but uses NSI's policy to try to get it. Only a tiny handful of the cases I have seen are bona fide trademark cases, for example where one party has a coined unique trademark like "intermatic" or "panavision". In those handful of cases, the courts have proven to be a more than adequate way for the trademark owner to get relief. And guess what? My direct experience is almost identical to Carl's. In fact, I may actually have spoken to MORE domain name holders who are being victimized than Carl has through DNRC (most domain name holders who have contacted DNRC do not have the funding to afford Carl :-)). His findings are quite accurate. __ To receive the digest version instead, send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To SUBSCRIBE forward this message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNSUBSCRIBE, forward this message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Problems/suggestions regarding this list? Email [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___END
[ifwp] Re: How not to define membership classes
Where is this latest draft located? On the DNSO web page, the "latest" thing listed is the 12/18 INTA draft. Thanks. __ To receive the digest version instead, send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To SUBSCRIBE forward this message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNSUBSCRIBE, forward this message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Problems/suggestions regarding this list? Email [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___END
