Re: [ga] RIPE NCC response to the Lynn Roadmap

["William S. Lovell" <wsl@cerebalaw.com>]

Sotiris Sotiropoulos wrote:

> David,
>
> Thanks for this excellent summation!  How true.  A few
> questions:  What about "policy" decision making with
> respect to domain names (i.e. trademarks vs. domains)?
> Who/what will deal with such matters on the Internet, if
> at all?  Will "Intellectual Property" issues be left up to
> national jurisdiction(s)?

See http://www.cerebalaw.com/domain.htm.

> What about the COM, NET, ORG
> domains, what will be their policy scope and
> instrument(s)?   Lastly, Will we go back to Postel's
> vision of not allowing trademark claims priority or
> right(s) over domains on the Internet?

I would certainly hope so.

Bill Lovell

>
>
>
> DPF wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, 02 Mar 2002 11:22:38 -0800, "William S. Lovell"
> > <wsl@cerebalaw.com> wrote:
> >
> > >I would heartily concur with this general concept, with one exception.
> > >Who needs ICANN? Why have a "middle man?"
> >
> > Indeed that is now the question.
> >
> > >All of the ccTLDs
> > >are perfectly capable, through the NIC, of setting up a global system,
> > >now hopefully to include .eu, without having the imperial ICANN make
> > >up a bunch of rules without any global consultation, the ccTLDs don't
> > >like parts of it and refuse to pay ICANN any money, etc. I'm aware
> > >that there are contracts, but these die out eventually (one would hope),
> > >and during that time a truly international authoritative root server could
> > >be set up, together with all the other paraphenalia.
> >
> > ICANN Management has effectively just declared war on the ccTLDs
> > saying they effectively wish to be able to force contracts and levy
> > binding fees on ccTLDs regardless of whether the ccTLDs agree or not.
> >
> > Many ccTLDs have given hundreds of thousands to ICANN and the ICANN
> > process as signs of good will despite receiving almost nothing in
> > return.  This was with the intention that mutually acceptable
> > contracts could be negotiated but ICANN refuses to negotiate and
> > rejects the ccTLD versions out of hand rather than uses them as a
> > basis for negotiation.
> >
> > I think it may be time for the ccTLDs to simply stop paying any money
> > to ICANN when ICANN is going to use that money to try and do them
> > over.  Probably to also stop turning up to meetings.
> >
> > ccTLDs do not in my eyes needs a NZ$90 million a year body to do the
> > job Jon Postel used to do.  ICANN was primarily created due to the
> > need to create new gTLDs not to form some mini-UN over the ccTLDs.
> >
> > In terms of the root zone, only three functions are really needed for
> > the ccTLDs:
> > 1) Updating of root zone details after authentication
> > 2) Notification of minimum technical standards for a TLD
> > 3) A re-delegation procedure where the old manager loses the support
> > of the local internet community
> >
> > This could all be done very easily by the ccTLDs acting as a peer
> > organisation.
> >
> > DPF
> > --
> > david@farrar.com
> > ICQ 29964527
> > --
> > This message was passed to you via the ga-full@dnso.org list.
> > Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> > ("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
> > Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>
> --
> Sincerely,
>
> Sotiris Sotiropoulos
>         Hermes Network Inc.
>         Toronto, Canada
>
> ----
> direct: 416.422.1034
>
> icq: 34564103
> --
> 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

--
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