Re: [ga] DNSO ICANN board member

[James Love <love@cptech.org>]

Returning from a week offline, I am working my way through some mail.
Jefsey asks some good questions, and I'll respond as best I can.

Jefsey Morfin wrote:
> But I would ask from every of the five candidates to address the following
> questions I feel important:
> 
> - what is your definition of a domain name? On which grounds do you think
> IP is concerned? Do you consider that owning a domain name is the same as
> using it? Which solutions would you propose to get rid legally and fairly
> of cybersquatting?


    From a perspective of national law in most developed countries, I
think we are past the point where there is a serious effort to assert
that domain names have nothing to do with trademarks.    I am not aware
that developing countries have been very aggressive on this topic in
international fora, such as WIPO.  So it seems to me, the issue both (a)
what is good policy, and (b) who should be making and enforcing policy.

    From a traditional consumer/public interest perspective, trademark
rights should protect the public from misleading representations, but
they should also be limited in important ways, to avoid anticompetitive
uses of trademarks, or to accommodate a number of other important
values, such as free speech.   

   Much of the current problems stem from the artifical scarcity of
TLDs.  If ICANN would permit an expansion of the TLD space, for a
variety of names and TLD management policies, there would be far less
need to litigate disputes.  Give the airline industry .air or .airlines,
and let them manage it they way they want.  Let the labor unions have
.union, or a rival group have .workers, to manage as they want.  Let the
music industry get .music, the film industry .cinema or .film (or other
language versions), and then we would not have everyone fighting over
.com and .org.   

    I think the cybersquatting issue is real, particularly now with few
TLDs.  I can't get cpt.org, an unused domain.  Many of the really
twisted WIPO UDRP decisions are efforts by the panel members to take
domains away from speculators.   Unfortunately, in their efforts to
attack the speculators, WIPO panels are creating global trademark policy
that is far too restrictive, in term of the public's rights.  For
example, in several cases WIPO panels take away generic names and award
them to firms that have registered trademarks that use the generic
name.  WIPO panels have been very aggressive with respect to the issue
of what constitutes a confusingly similiar name.  The notion that
natwest.com will be confused with natwestsucks.com is absurd, of course,
but so are the decisions in domains such as catmachine.com and
caterpillar, crew and jcrew and others. 

	Decisions like kwasizabantu.org
(http://lists.essential.org/pipermail/random-bits/2000-August/000260.html)
are particularly troubling, where the WIPO panel flatly rejected free
speech or critiscim as a legitimate use for a domain.   In my opinion,
the ICANN board has to be more responsive to the problems with the
UDRP.  I would push for a clearer statement regarding the public's
rights in these disputes, particularly in the areas of the public's
rights to use names of firms, products or organizations in a domain that
was used for criticsm (walmartsucks.com), parody, organizing
(exxon.union), or for competitive purposes, such as comparisons of rival
products (cokevpepsi.comparison, aolflaws.com, etc).  

  See
http://lists.essential.org/pipermail/random-bits/2000-August/thread.html
for links to discussions of some of the recent WIPO decisions.

> - is the address semantic part for IP or part of free speech? I explain: is
> there a difference for you between http://support.france.ibm.com (Saxon
> semantic) and http://support.ibm-france.com (Latin semantic)

    I don't understand the point you are making here.  However, in my
opinion, domain names are speech, and the public has legitimate
interests in using domains names for speech.

> - a network may two architectures: central operations with slave stations
> (star network) or distributed stations and central services (meshed
> network). What is the Internet on your opinion? How do you relate this to
> Roots, ICANN, DNSO WGs?

   My uneducated opinion is that ICANN should avoid unnecesary
expansions of its authority, and not seek to exercise control over
network operations that do not deal directly with domain names and
numbers.  

   I think the question of roots is interesting, because it is not
obvious what would constitute an alterantive root system.  Some have
suggested that AOL's keyword system could be considered an alternative
root system, for example.  I would hope that ICANN would stay out of as
many areas as possible.

> - how important to you is IP numbering plan management? do you support the
> concept of a de facto worldwide control of the people through their IP
> addresses? what is your opinion on privacy in the IP context?

   The privacy issues regarding ip and domain name management are not
trival, and I regret not having addressed this in any detail in my
earlier statement on the DNSO web page.  In my opinion, the current
ICANN restrictions on the anonynous registration of domains is a mistake
-- it is too broad.  I can see how this might make sense for web pages
that are engaged in commerical transactions.  But the current ICANN
restriction applies to any domain registration, used for any purpose.  I
wish I knew more about where things are going in terms of IP numbering
managment.  I was looking at this page today, trying to appreciate the
privacy consequences:
http://www.arin.net/announcements/policy_changes.html

> 
> - every nominated candidate is from NorthA. Have you previously committed
> clearly to the opening of the Internet structures and technologies to new
> cultures, character sets, national, regional, local interests?
> ICANN should be a real international body. This should be made clear
> through the recognition of several languages and the geographical location
> of its instances (not only through the tourism of its meetings). DNSO paved
> the way. Would you support equal right ICANN offices (even unstaffed) in
> every geographical area?Do you have suggestions to make such local presence
> useful?

   I don't think local presence is a good idea, because it is
expensive.  One might want to insist on staff who could speak more than
one language, if only to insure that you hired people who understand
there is more than one culture.  My wife is french, and she used to work
in the R&D office for Berlitz, testing teaching materials in different
cultures, and in distance education in Malyasia, so I have learned a
little from her.
Most of my own work is international, much in developing countries.  In
international groups I work in, I have found translations to be mixed
blessing.  They are expensive, and can slow things down quite a bit. 
With ICANN, how many languages would be enough?  India has something
like 40 official languages.  I think the EU is being buried by the costs
of servicing so many languages, but ICANN covers the whole world, so the
problem is much more difficult.  

   Where ICANN can do more is in terms of multilingual character sets,
domain names and TLDs, but here one would expect the IETF to be taking
the lead on the technical issues.  

   With respect to different legal traditions regarding trademarks,
freedom of speech and privacy, ICANN should not migrate toward the
policies with the least freedom and least privacy.  

> 
> - new industries and automation will have a tremendous use of Internet,
> opening new ways to use, develop, control and pay for it. Would you support
> innovative avenues in studying this aspect, like - this is only an example
> - in having test/experimental gTLD sponsored by the DNSO (out of the
> current ICANN work)? Other suggestions?

   ICANN should let others experiment with different gTLDs.  I think
restricted TLDs will be interesting, if ICANN premits easy entry to run
a TLD.  At some point ICANN should give some indication of the number of
TLDs that the DNS system can support.  

> 
> - ICANN charter is to work out consensus. The "stay @large" experience is
> not satisfactory in its present form (over representation of Japan and
> Germany, unequal number of ICANN nominated person, short period during
> vacations, 70% of the voting PINs not received). This is therefore an
> anti-consensus operation: which strategy would you propose? Which is your
> vision of the ICANN and what are the bylaws modifications you would support?

   Good questions.  I don't have many answers.  I would start by working
to get consensus on a statement about where ICANN's mission ends -- an
"I CAN'T" statement.  Just having ICANN claim that it doesn't do policy
work, when that is most of what it does, isn't working very well.  Once
you have a better handle on where ICANN's mission ends, you can make
better decision on how to run ICANN.   I think it is important to keep
the elections for the at large members, so there is at least a
possibility that the public can participate.  I am concerned that ICANN
will impose fees on at large voting rights.

> 
> - ICANN needs a budget and people dedicating time and resources to the
> common good should deserve to be correctly compensated (do you approve).
> ICANN seems to weave links, financial expanses, working culture, etc... to
> become a need for a court of large interests and real or self nominated
> experts, making itself necessary as a business would do. Do you agree? Do
> you support this strategy? Which alternative would you support? Would you
> support the concept of SO having an independent budget and resources?

   The funding issue is a tough one, because ICANN is looking for money
everywhere, including IP numbers, registry fees, and things like the
$50k fee for even applying for a new TLD.  Meanwhile, some ICANN staff
claim the public should not have a say in ICANN policies (for example
Mike Roberts comments in Cario).  I personally think ICANN could cut the
costs of the meetings quite a bit, and as much as I enjoy the trips to
Cario and other places, this may not be a good way to operate,
particularly if generous hosts don't appear.  A much more boring but
frugal approach much be a good idea.  

> - there are in the world many worldwide organizations representing
> interests using Internet, from IATA to Churches, Red Cross to Interpol, GAC
> to CCITT. Would you support the concept of an International Organization
> Internet Club for them to periodically meet, exchange informations and
> experience, share projects, describe needs, etc..? Would you support the
> idea of a ad hoc Working Group to study this and propose a Supporting
> Organization set-up?

   I don't think ICANN should be responsible for all of these various
Internet agendas.  It is not at all qualified to do many of these
things.

> - if elected at the BoD, do you consider that you will have to represent
> the then current opinion of the DNSO General Assembly even if changing, or
> that you owe the DNSO and the people who voted for you to stay cleverly
> consistent with your own views.

     I think you have to respond to new information.  You can look at
what I have said about ICANN over the past two years here:
http://www.cptech.org/ecom/icann

> I apologize to have been long, but IMHO some of these 10 issues will decide
> of the survival of the ICANN and we need to know where our director will stand.
> Sincerely yours.
> Jefsey Morfin
> 

   Thanks, it was fun to respond. Jamie

-- 
James Love  <love@cptech.org>  http://www.cptech.org
Consumer Project on Technology, P.O. Box 19367, Washington, DC 200036
voice 1.202.387.8030 fax 1.202.234.5176
--
This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html