From: owner-wg-c-digest@dnso.org (WG-C-DIGEST) To: wg-c-digest@dnso.org Subject: WG-C-DIGEST V1 #34 Reply-To: Sender: owner-wg-c-digest@dnso.org Errors-To: owner-wg-c-digest@dnso.org Precedence: bulk WG-C-DIGEST Monday, March 13 2000 Volume 01 : Number 034 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 00:08:56 -0500 From: "Milton Mueller" Subject: Re: [wg-c] voting on TLDs - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Kent Crispin" > Most important, it makes the fatal assumption that the only reason to > run a TLD registry is to *sell* registrations. In fact, of course, > there are a great many different possible reasons to run a TLD registry, > both commercial and non commercial, that do not involve directly selling > registrations. Agreed. > incremental cost for adding a new gTLD is close to zero. Any > technical/business infrastructure that can provide a registry service > for a single gTLD can provide registry service for a hundred gTLDs. Agreed again. >chuckle< Kent, have you ever thought about what this fact does to your and Dave's scare tactics about the "operational risk" associated with adding TLDs? Kind of blows it out of the water, doesn't it? > Moreover, the scaling problem caused by adding a new gTLD is > indistinguishable from the scaling problem of the growth of > registrations in an already existing gTLD. (*) Ditto my comment immediately above. This is just too good. If there are no costs and no scaling problems associated with adding TLDs, then this debate is pretty much over, isn't it? > IBM corp of course has the technical and financial capability to run a > TLD registry for it's own purposes. What policy does ICANN adopt that > prevents this from happening? If, on the other hand, ICANN allows this, > what is to prevent the hundreds of thousands of other companies that > already have sufficient resources to run a TLD registry from getting > their own? What's wrong with that? That is one of the most clearly beneficial applications of the expansion of the name space. You profess to be concerned about "lock-in." What better way to prevent it than to allow companies with a heavy dependence on the Internet to control their own name space, from the TLD on down? I look forward to this development and it would have happened years ago if it weren't for the purely political gridlock associated with various I* groups' and trademark owners' attempts to seize control of the root. - --MM ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2000 21:42:33 -0800 From: Kent Crispin Subject: Re: [wg-c] voting on TLDs On Mon, Mar 13, 2000 at 12:08:56AM -0500, Milton Mueller wrote: [...] > > incremental cost for adding a new gTLD is close to zero. Any > > technical/business infrastructure that can provide a registry service > > for a single gTLD can provide registry service for a hundred gTLDs. > > Agreed again. >chuckle< Kent, have you ever thought about what this fact > does to your and Dave's scare tactics about the "operational risk" > associated with adding TLDs? Kind of blows it out of the water, doesn't it? No, it doesn't. The prior operational risks discussed had the implied premise that *new registries* (in the sense of technical, physical, and operational infrastructure) were involved. Moreover, the current discussion has to do with whether it is necessary to restrict gTLD proposals to those who were also proposing new technical, physical, and operational infrastructure. > > Moreover, the scaling problem caused by adding a new gTLD is > > indistinguishable from the scaling problem of the growth of > > registrations in an already existing gTLD. (*) > > Ditto my comment immediately above. This is just too good. If there are no > costs and no scaling problems associated with adding TLDs, then this debate > is pretty much over, isn't it? Nope. Excess saliva is interfering with your thinking, I'm afraid. > > IBM corp of course has the technical and financial capability to run a > > TLD registry for it's own purposes. What policy does ICANN adopt that > > prevents this from happening? If, on the other hand, ICANN allows this, > > what is to prevent the hundreds of thousands of other companies that > > already have sufficient resources to run a TLD registry from getting > > their own? > > What's wrong with that? That is one of the most clearly beneficial > applications of the expansion of the name space. You profess to be concerned > about "lock-in." What better way to prevent it than to allow companies with > a heavy dependence on the Internet to control their own name space, from the > TLD on down? What's wrong with it is that it involves a root zone with millions of entries. It moves the .com problem to the root, and makes it worse. *No* company will want to be under any other companies TLD; *all* companies will want their own TLD. It won't solve any problems at all. - -- Kent Crispin "Do good, and you'll be kent@songbird.com lonesome." -- Mark Twain ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2000 21:50:10 -0800 From: "Christopher Ambler" Subject: RE: [wg-c] voting on TLDs >What's wrong with it is that it involves a root zone with millions of >entries. It moves the .com problem to the root, and makes it worse. >*No* company will want to be under any other companies TLD; *all* >companies will want their own TLD. It won't solve any problems at all. More FUD. Make the requirements to run a TLD reasonable, and you'll find that it makes no sense, either technical or economical, for the vast majority of companies. It does make sense for an AT&T or an IBM, but not for Bill's Bait and Sushi. They can't afford a dedicated and redundant DS3 array for their registry. - -- Christopher Ambler chris@the.web ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2000 23:59:57 -0800 From: Kent Crispin Subject: Re: [wg-c] CONSENSUS CALL -- selecting the gTLDs in the initial rollout On Sun, Mar 12, 2000 at 02:04:41PM -0500, Milton Mueller wrote: > > Why? It would be perfectly reasonable for ICANN to say "Yes, we think > > that your idea for the '.foo' TLD is excellent, but we understand quite > > well why you wouldn't want to run it, and accept your suggestion to put > > it out for bid. In the extremely unlikely case that there are no > > acceptable bids, then of course we won't use it." > > Kent is saying Please -- don't try to put words in my mouth. You do a lousy job. > that groups could propose, and ICANN accept, TLDs WITHOUT the > proposer having arranged for specific contracts or operational arrangements > to actually register names. That position seems unworkable, and antithetical > to the emerging consensus. > > Under Kent's alternative, some group could be designated "policy authority" > over a TLD without having any demonstrated ability to actually provide a > service on the Internet. Nope. Any group could *propose* a gTLD. "Propose" is not the same as "be designated". Under the Mueller proposal the only parties that can even *propose* a gTLD are "registries". Of course, without a concrete definition of "registry", that proposal is ambiguous past the point of usefullness.... > The relationship between its policy authority and > the implementation of the policy via the registry operation would not be > specified. On what basis, then would the delegation of a TLD be made? On the > grounds that ICANN "liked the idea"? Not good enough. You are making up a bunch of strawman hypotheticals. The *criteria* for the delegation of a gTLD are the big issues regardless of whether it is a "registry" that proposes a gTLD. We have made no progress whatsoever in defining useful criteria. > On what basis would > ICANN give a "good idea" to one proposer rather than another proposer with a > similar idea wanting the same TLD string? On the quality of the total proposal, as judged by a set of yet-to-be-defined criteria. Definition of concrete criteria is a big job -- that's true regardless of who proposes gTLDs. Not to beat a dead horse -- it's also a job in which we have made essentially zero progress. > All business firms involved in complex operations "put things out to bid" as > part of the process of assembling their service. If I win a contract to run > a restaurant concession on the NY Thruway, I may contract with another firm > to supply the food, the labor, etc. But I am still the concessionaire and I > take responsibility for assembling the package. At this point your definition of a "registry" is "the entity that takes responsibility for assembling the package"? > > Note that I am not in any way restricting a registry from making a > > proposal for a TLD -- I am simply saying that there is no good reason to > > restrict proposers to registries only, and many good reasons not to make > > such a restriction. > > Both you and Brunner seemed to be equating "registry" with "existing > registries." > This is a logically unnecessary equation. > > Anyone who proposes to run a tld is a registry. Thanks. That is *precisely* the empty definition I gave. :-) The implication, of course, is that if I propose to run the .kjc TLD, I am a registry... > Thus, any group that wants "policy authority" has to team up with a viable > operations entity when making its proposal, or do the job itself. I can do the job myself. I wouldn't have it any other way. > Whether > the actual "nuts and bolts" are outsourced or not, is not relevant to our > task. What is relevant is that the proposal be complete. ICANN is delegating > the right to run a registry, to maintain a zone file under a TLD. If a group > hasn't figured out how to do that yet, it shouldn't get a delegation. I know how to do that, too. What you are saying is that pretty much anyone can be a registry. > > "be WILLING to operate or take responsibility for" [a registry] is, I > think, in most > > people's mind, different than "be a registry". > > This is where we part ways. There is no difference. For ICANN's purposes, an > organization that gets a TLD delegation is a registry. OK. A third definition. I can live with this one too. Empty, circular definitions are very liberating. > This is true > regardless of whether they outsource the computer operations part of it or > not. Really, your point seems to be purely semantic at this point. You are > choosing to call a company a "registry" only if they do the computer > operations and help desk stuff. I find this distinction to be idiosyncratic > to Kent Crispin -- all extant models of things that we call "registries" > involve "policy authority," whether it is NSI or your typical ccTLD. To summarize: According to you a registry is 1) an entity that "takes responsibility for putting the package together", 2) anyone who proposes a TLD, 3) any entity that ICANN is willing to delegate a TLD to. No particular conditions of operational competence are defined -- anything may be outsourced Let's put these together, now -- the wording "recently urged by Sheppard and Mueller", and your clarification of what is meant by "registry". These are direct quotes: Registries would apply describing their proposed TLD, and an ICANN body or process would make selections taking into account the characteristics of both the registry and its proposed TLD. For ICANN's purposes, an organization that gets a TLD delegation is a registry -- that is, anyone who proposes a TLD and takes responsibility for putting the package together. With this clarification I can sleep a lot better tonight. > > Nope. A perfectly reasonable model is that they are the policy > > authority for the registry, but don't have anything to do with the > > day-to-day operation. > > "Don't have anything to do with" are strong words. Do you mean that ICANN > would select an operational partner for them? They could not change the > operational contract when they wanted? > Give me one real-world, actually existing example of such a thing. Example: IANA defined the policy for .edu; NSI carries out the day to day operation of the registry. > Certainly > Jamie Love's CPT would manage and select the operational partner, and impose > conditions and procedures regulating who could or could not register in > .union or .sucks. The nuts and bolts operations are simply managerial > responsibilities of the delegatee. Love's organization is the "registry." Yes, I understand. Precisely. Your expanded definition of registry allows Jamie Love's CPT to be a registry, even though it has no infrastructure of its own; doesn't have a help desk or any of that stuff; and can replace that operational component as it sees fit. > > Which is easier: > > 1) Given an approved TLD string, find a qualified registry to operate it > > 2) Given a registry, find an approved TLD string to operate. > > You don't seem to have thought this through carefully. > If registries are willing to "pound down the door" to operate a TLD string > AFTER it has been approved, they would also be willing to make arrangements > with proposers BEFOREHAND, in the hope that it will be approved. ?? Doesn't follow. 1) I go to Dunn and Bradstreet and tell them I have a great idea for a .xxx TLD for explicit sexual content, and would they please sign a contract with me saying they will run my TLD, in case it gets approved? They politely show me the door. 2) I go to Dunn and Bradstreet with a signed paper from ICANN saying that ICANN approves the .xxx TLD, and that I just had to find a qualified registry operator to operate it.... > The only > difference is that in the second case, the policy authority and the operator > have to work together BEFORE they get a delegation. Which is, I think, > better. Actually, in the average case I agree that it would be better to work out those details in advance. However, I don't see any point to limiting proposals to such cases. > What you don't explain is on what basis ICANN would make a delegation > (approve a TLD string) in the absence of any specifics about operational > details. You are right -- I don't. No point -- there aren't any specific criteria for operational details available, either. One would think that this WG might have tackled that problem, perhaps after we had done the necessary work of coming up with a taxonomy, so we would know what we were talking about when we used the word "registry". > Also, Your thinking about this is limited by the fact that you think of a > "registry" as a generic function with no differentiation. No, it is not, and that is not what I think. You would be better off if you avoided trying to tell people what it is they are actually thinking. - -- Kent Crispin "Do good, and you'll be kent@songbird.com lonesome." -- Mark Twain ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 00:17:02 -0800 From: Kent Crispin Subject: Re: [wg-c] voting on TLDs On Sun, Mar 12, 2000 at 09:50:10PM -0800, Christopher Ambler wrote: > >What's wrong with it is that it involves a root zone with millions of > >entries. It moves the .com problem to the root, and makes it worse. > >*No* company will want to be under any other companies TLD; *all* > >companies will want their own TLD. It won't solve any problems at all. > > More FUD. > > Make the requirements to run a TLD reasonable, and you'll find that > it makes no sense, either technical or economical, for the vast > majority of companies. It does make sense for an AT&T or an IBM, > but not for Bill's Bait and Sushi. They can't afford a dedicated and > redundant DS3 array for their registry. Does the word "outsourcing" mean anything to you? How about "insignificant incremental cost"? BB&S won't need a dedicated redundant DS3 array -- they will use AT&T's infrastructure. ATT has sunk the cost into the infrastructure; adding the entries in the table for BB&S's TLD won't be much more work than what is currently involved in registering an SLD, and any fees they can charge simply defray their already sunk costs. BB&S can go to ICANN and say, "Look, I've got a contract with a huge registry with multiple OC48s that will provide the technical infrastructure for my TLD." Since there would be thousands of large companies in this situation, competition will be brisk, prices will get down to the true incremental cost of adding a TLD to a registry (close to zero). - -- Kent Crispin "Do good, and you'll be kent@songbird.com lonesome." -- Mark Twain ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 00:34:46 -0800 From: "Christopher Ambler" Subject: RE: [wg-c] voting on TLDs >ATT has sunk the cost into the infrastructure; adding the entries in >the table for BB&S's TLD won't be much more work than what is currently >involved in registering an SLD, and any fees they can charge simply >defray their already sunk costs. BB&S can go to ICANN and say, "Look, >I've got a contract with a huge registry with multiple OC48s that will >provide the technical infrastructure for my TLD." Since there would be >thousands of large companies in this situation, competition will be >brisk, prices will get down to the true incremental cost of adding a >TLD to a registry (close to zero). For sake of argument, let's assume that you're correct, and this is the scenario that would play out. What, then, do YOU suggest be the procedure to limit this? Speaking from my own perspective, I'd love a good solution - I'm coming from the standpoint of already having the infrastructure in place for a registry, so that's not a worry for me. Indeed, limit the field and you enhance the value to me of what I already have. I suspect the few pioneering registries (with one of which you have your own affiliations) want nothing more than a limiting function. Just being honest, Kent. So limit away. I'm serious, though - what's your proposal? - -- Christopher Ambler chris@the.web ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 06:06:07 -0500 From: Jonathan Weinberg Subject: [wg-c] forwarded for Kendall Dawson >Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 03:13:17 -0500 >To: wg-c@dnso.org >From: Kendall Dawson >Subject: Milton Mueller's definition of a registry > >I agree with Milton. > >By having third-party organizations involved at a purely administrative level would only cause more confusion. Either you run the registry or you don't. We don't need the extra level of bureaucracy caused by separating the "sponsors" from the daily administration of the TLD. If you have an idea for a new TLD - you either have the ability to run the registry yourself - or, you go find someone who can do it for you. When you approach ICANN for approval, it should be assumed that you (or someone that you have partnered with) already have the ability to run the registry. > >I feel that we already have enough red-tape to deal with as it is. > >Kendall > > >- ----- Original Message ----- >From: "Milton Mueller" > > > Anyone who proposes to run a tld is a registry. > > > > Thus, any group that wants "policy authority" has to team up with a viable > > operations entity when making its proposal, or do the job itself. Whether > > the actual "nuts and bolts" are outsourced or not, is not relevant to our > > task. What is relevant is that the proposal be complete. ICANN is delegating > > the right to run a registry, to maintain a zone file under a TLD. If a group > > hasn't figured out how to do that yet, it shouldn't get a delegation. > > > ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 10:13:37 -0500 From: Jonathan Weinberg Subject: Re: [wg-c] CONSENSUS CALL -- selecting the gTLDs in the initial rollout Eric -- My intention in using the word "registries" was to include not only NSI and the ccTLD registries, but also new entities seeking to operate registries for the new TLDs. Since apparently that wasn't clear from context, I'll make it explicit in any discussion of the consensus call (whether it succeeds or fails) in our report. The compromise position referenced in the consensus call is entirely consistent with the Position Paper E proposal as I understand it: PPE proposes a particular set of registry operators (NIEC, Treaty 7 Tribal Council, Nat'l Indian Telecom Inst., Abenaki Community of Portland) for the .NAA registry, and makes it clear (I think) that these folks propose to be the actual operational registry (as opposed to mere sponsoring entities with policy authority). If ICANN adopted the position set out in the consensus call, then the next step for .NAA would be for you, Geogh, Mandell & Cristeau to submit the .NAA proposal in your capacity as the folks seeking to operate the proposed registry. (The recent discussion also makes clear that different folks supporting the consensus call may have different understandings of what the word "registry" conveys, and what an application would consist of. If the proposition succeeds in our vote, any discussion in the report we make to the NC will have to recognize that divergence.) It's true that there are a lot of questions this consensus call *doesn't* answer — shared/unshared, non-profit/for-profit, etc. I'm just trying to take the issues one at a time, and to cut them into small enough pieces that we can actually reach some agreements — same as always. Jon Jonathan Weinberg co-chair, WG-C weinberg@msen.com At 09:04 AM 3/12/00 -0500, Eric Brunner wrote: > >On Sun, Mar 05, 2000 at 06:28:52PM -0500, Jonathan Weinberg wrote: >> ... suggest the only approach >> with a chance of winning rough consensus in the WG for selecting the gTLDs >> in the initial rollout is ... > > Registries would apply describing their proposed TLD, and an > ICANN body or process would make selections taking into account > the characteristics of both the registry and its proposed TLD. > >1. Under the ICANN By-Laws and within the existing Accredited Constituencies >of the DNSO, at present, "registries" are the following set of entities: > > o Network Solutions Inc., Don Telage the contact of record > >and > o some number of ccTLD registries, Dennis Jennings and Patricio > Poblete the contacts of record > > >2. The proposal removes, albeit for the initial cohort of new gTLDs only, >the capacity for initiating the procedure for the creation of new gTLD(s) >from the ICANN Board or their designates other than "registries". > >3. The proposal simply restates without clarification the charter of WG-C >when reference is made to a "body or process" and "characteristics" of the >registry operator and the registry charter. > >For these three reasons I oppose the proposal. > >i. NSI has not indicated an interest in creating a SLD consistent with >Position Paper E, nor any SLD organized or conceived as a human or civil >right rather than as a right to market. There is little or nothing to >suggest that NSI would operate differently if given the delegation(s) >to operate new TLDs. > >ii. The ICANN Board, through the agency of its subordinate body, the DNSO >Names Council, may consider directly the specific proposition expressed in >Position Paper E, and the general proposition that it may act in opposition >to the interests of current holders of ICANN TLD delegations. > >iii. The difficult issues were identified in 1997, in the IAHC process. >A short reminder: access model (shared vs not), cost recovery model >(non-profit or for-profit), just to name two. > >WG-C could be re-chartered excluding the substantive questions of policy, >or the chartering authority can conclude that on its own based upon the >choice by WG-C to offer no specific recommendations except vague excerpts >from the DoC White Paper. > >I join with Kent Crispin and urge the participants in WG-C to reject this >proposition. > >Cheers, >Eric > > ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 10:22:45 -0800 From: James Love Subject: Re: [wg-c] voting on TLDs Kent Crispin wrote: > Suppose 10000 new members suddenly appeared and decided to add a TLD > called ".general-motors". Or maybe ".saddam". And then 30000 more > people suddenly joined and voted for ".death-to-gore". Are there technical reasons why these TLDs should not be approved? Jamie love@cptech.org http://www.cptech.org ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 11:30:30 -0500 From: "Kevin J. Connolly" Subject: RE: [wg-c] voting on TLDs "Roeland M. J. Meyer" wrote (03/12/00 12:10PM ) >Gawd, I hate to agree with Dave on anything these days, but; > >---- Dave Crocker, Monday, March 06, 2000 8:45 AM >The concern for stability has been present from the start of discussions >about gTLD expansion, roughly five years ago. It has covered: > > 1. Technical and operational impact on the root > > 2. Administrative and operational capabilities of registries > > 3. Disruption due to legal distraction from the trademark >community. > >A significant problem coming from any one of these 3 different directions >will render the DNS unstable. The record of listing and discussing these 3 >categories of concern is massive and public. > >---- Roeland M.J. Meyer, Sunday, March 12, 2000 0900 hrs. >What Dave fails to mention here is that most of the triggers for those >discussions were Dave Crocker and Kent Crispin repeatedly raising the same >issues over and over again, just as they have done here, You forgot me again :-S More importantly, when has the validity of an observation been dependent on the fact that only a few sane voices bring it up for consideration? >although number >three is recent, since ICANN, and a valid concern. Nope. The #1 reason why the GTLD-MOU tanked was opposition from the trademark community. >The result is as Dave >says, items 1 and 2 are massively covered. Item 1, particularly has been >pounded to the point that the dead horse is only a memory. Item 2 is an >issue with a vetting process, and is not effected by item 1. Item 3 is a >policy jurisdictional issue which we have no power to effect (nor do the >folks in WG-B). Nope. We have the power (indeed, the duty) to make it clear that the addition of new TLDs will not be allowed to become an occasion for new and more injurious forms of cybersquatting. As was observed at the Small Business Administration Roundtable on Domain Names (March 1, 2000), continued ignorance of the political power of the trademark community and its continuing concern that the dothead community will not take their legitimate interests into consideration will foredoom the whole process of adding new TLDs to failure. Perhaps the production of failure is, sub rosa, the objective of more than a few of the participants in the domain name wars. Kevin J. Connolly The opinions expressed are those of the author, not of Robinson Silverman Pearce Aronsohn & Berman LLP This note is not legal advice. If it were, it would come with an invoice. As usual, please disregard the trailer which follows. ********************************************************************** The information contained in this electronic message is confidential and is or may be protected by the attorney-client privilege, the work product doctrine, joint defense privileges, trade secret protections, and/or other applicable protections from disclosure. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution or reproduction of this com- munication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communi- cation in error, please immediately notify us by calling our Help Desk at 212-541-2000 ext.3314, or by e-mail to helpdesk@rspab.com ********************************************************************** ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 12:04:13 -0500 From: "Milton Mueller" Subject: Re: [wg-c] voting on TLDs - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Kevin J. Connolly" > Nope. The #1 reason why the GTLD-MOU tanked was opposition from the > trademark community. Nope. The #1 reason was the US government's lack of...er....comfort at the role of the ITU. ICANN was created primarily to avoid having to put these matters in the hands of intergovernmental organizations such as ITU. The #2 reason was the refusal of the USG to allow a government contractor such as IANA to grab control of valuable taxpayer-funded assets without any formal authorization. The trademark theory is an odd one, given the participation of WIPO and INTA in the gTLD-MoU, and the fact that gTLD-MoU gave them more power and more representation than they have under ICANN. Trademark interests are one of many stakeholders in the name space. They have gotten almost everything they wanted out of ICANN and it's time for some other groups to have their needs considered. - --MM ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 12:21:47 -0500 From: "Kevin J. Connolly" Subject: Re: [wg-c] voting on TLDs "Milton Mueller" wrote (03/13/00 12:04PM ) >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Kevin J. Connolly" > >> Nope. The #1 reason why the GTLD-MOU tanked was opposition from the >> trademark community. > >Nope. The #1 reason was the US government's lack of...er....comfort at the >role of the ITU. ICANN was created primarily to avoid having to put these >matters in the hands of intergovernmental organizations such as ITU. As you have done before, you simply make it up as you go. I was present in the room when Becky Burr and Ira Magaziner originally floated, and then refined, the NewCo proposal. The administration's "discomfort" at the role of the ITU is a fiction, created by the organizations that were fronting for the trademark community when the GTLD-MoU underwent its hatchet job. The relationship between the ITU and the GTLD-MOU was handled as a diplomatic manner, and, in the best traditions of international relations, a means was found to accommodated all parties. Then the trademark community emerged with an agenda which was shamelessly devoted to the destruction of the GTLD-MoU and the prevention of new GTLDs ever being added to the root. To continue to foist the "ITU-Discomfort" scenario is to continue to legitimate the greed of the trademark community. > >The #2 reason was the refusal of the USG to allow a government contractor >such as IANA to grab control of valuable taxpayer-funded assets without any >formal authorization. > Oh my numen! This is about the most horrendous thing I've ever heard said of Jon Postel (=IANA). There are many reasons for the motto, de mortuis nil nisi bonum. Not the least of these is that those who attack the dead cannot be perceived other than as cowards. The only grab of public assets which has taken place is the grab of the databases by NSI, which, rather than allow a public asset to be held in trust for the public has decided instead to break the asset beyond repair. (Has anyone tried to do useful work with the whois databases lately?) >The trademark theory is an odd one, given the participation of WIPO and INTA >in the gTLD-MoU, and the fact that gTLD-MoU gave them more power and more >representation than they have under ICANN. How fascinating. Where, in the CORE-POC paradigm, did the trademark community have a seat at the table? Where, in that process, was the ability to prevent the growth of the TLD namespace forever by imposing operationally-impossible constraints? > >Trademark interests are one of many stakeholders in the name space. They >have gotten almost everything they wanted out of ICANN and it's time for >some other groups to have their needs considered. Actually, they have that: there have been no new GTLDs added. There will be no significant growth in the TLD namespace for the foreseeable future. This is not at odds with their objectives, given the repeated failure of the ICANN process to address the concerns of the trademark community about cybersquatting, free-riding, and other predation. ********************************************************************** The information contained in this electronic message is confidential and is or may be protected by the attorney-client privilege, the work product doctrine, joint defense privileges, trade secret protections, and/or other applicable protections from disclosure. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution or reproduction of this com- munication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communi- cation in error, please immediately notify us by calling our Help Desk at 212-541-2000 ext.3314, or by e-mail to helpdesk@rspab.com ********************************************************************** ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 09:50:36 -0800 (PST) From: Patrick Greenwell Subject: Re: [wg-c] CONSENSUS CALL -- selecting the gTLDs in the initial rollout On Sun, 12 Mar 2000, Milton Mueller wrote: > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Kent Crispin" > > > Why? It would be perfectly reasonable for ICANN to say "Yes, we think > > that your idea for the '.foo' TLD is excellent, but we understand quite > > well why you wouldn't want to run it, and accept your suggestion to put > > it out for bid. In the extremely unlikely case that there are no > > acceptable bids, then of course we won't use it." > > Kent is saying that groups could propose, and ICANN accept, TLDs WITHOUT the > proposer having arranged for specific contracts or operational arrangements > to actually register names. That position seems unworkable, and antithetical > to the emerging consensus. It isn't unworkable at all, and in fact is much more "bottom-up" if done properly. Allowing the community to decide what TLDs are most desireable and then having ICANN put out bids for those TLDs is a much more equitable way of determining which TLDs should be introduced and whom they should be operated by. The alternative is yet another in the continuing series of arbitrary ICANN-board decisions. /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ Patrick Greenwell Earth is a single point of failure. \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 13:20:51 -0500 From: "A.M. Rutkowski" Subject: Re: [wg-c] voting on TLDs At 12:21 PM 3/13/2000, Kevin J. Connolly wrote: >As you have done before, you simply make it up as you go. >I was present in the room when Becky Burr and Ira Magaziner >originally floated, and then refined, the NewCo proposal. >The administration's "discomfort" at the role of the ITU is a fiction, >created by the organizations that were fronting for the >trademark community when the GTLD-MoU underwent its hatchet >job. The relationship between the ITU and the GTLD-MOU was >handled as a diplomatic manner, and, in the best traditions of >international relations, a means was found to accommodated all >parties. Then the trademark community emerged with an >agenda which was shamelessly devoted to the destruction of the >GTLD-MoU and the prevention of new GTLDs ever being added >to the root. To continue to foist the "ITU-Discomfort" scenario is to >continue to legitimate the greed of the trademark community. Milton is exactly correct, and the actions taken at that time had little to do with the trademark community. It had everything to do with US positions regarding the ITU that have been relatively long-standing - for the past 150 years. If anyone needs to refresh their memory, they can reference a timeline at: http://www.wia.org/pub/dns_governance_timeline.gif the powerpoint version with URLs is at: http://www.wia.org/pub/dns_governance_Timeline.zip See also: http://www.wia.org/pub/dns-brief.html http://www.wia.org/pub/itu-cl62-amr-response.html - --tony ps. If you think that the ITU General Secretariat is through trolling for Internet turf, check out its new press release http://www.itu.int/newsroom/press/releases/2000/02.html ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 13:29:50 -0500 From: "Winer, Jonathan" Subject: RE: [wg-c] voting on TLDs For a lawyer type as I am, Kevin Connolly's tripartite (and lawyerly) scheme is very helpful, as it clarifies where the core of our concern is: part three. Current perceived problems with identity theft have helped to spawn legislative schemes in dozens of states, designed to limit the free flow of information online through a variety of restrictive (though pro-privacy) measures that could for instance require explicit further permissions from message originators before repostings. Intentional misappropriations of famous names (or even less famous ones, like ours) can cause a wealth of malicious mischief, and in turn generate potential governmental regulatory and enforcement responses that many members of this working group might consider intrusive and unwise. It would be desirable if this group can develop an approach to gTLD expansion that discourages rather than facilitates such activity. - -----Original Message----- From: Kevin J. Connolly [mailto:CONNOLLK@rspab.com] Sent: Monday, March 13, 2000 11:31 AM To: wg-c@dnso.org Subject: RE: [wg-c] voting on TLDs "Roeland M. J. Meyer" wrote (03/12/00 12:10PM ) >Gawd, I hate to agree with Dave on anything these days, but; > >---- Dave Crocker, Monday, March 06, 2000 8:45 AM >The concern for stability has been present from the start of discussions >about gTLD expansion, roughly five years ago. It has covered: > > 1. Technical and operational impact on the root > > 2. Administrative and operational capabilities of registries > > 3. Disruption due to legal distraction from the trademark >community. > >A significant problem coming from any one of these 3 different directions >will render the DNS unstable. The record of listing and discussing these 3 >categories of concern is massive and public. > >---- Roeland M.J. Meyer, Sunday, March 12, 2000 0900 hrs. >What Dave fails to mention here is that most of the triggers for those >discussions were Dave Crocker and Kent Crispin repeatedly raising the same >issues over and over again, just as they have done here, You forgot me again :-S More importantly, when has the validity of an observation been dependent on the fact that only a few sane voices bring it up for consideration? >although number >three is recent, since ICANN, and a valid concern. Nope. The #1 reason why the GTLD-MOU tanked was opposition from the trademark community. >The result is as Dave >says, items 1 and 2 are massively covered. Item 1, particularly has been >pounded to the point that the dead horse is only a memory. Item 2 is an >issue with a vetting process, and is not effected by item 1. Item 3 is a >policy jurisdictional issue which we have no power to effect (nor do the >folks in WG-B). Nope. We have the power (indeed, the duty) to make it clear that the addition of new TLDs will not be allowed to become an occasion for new and more injurious forms of cybersquatting. As was observed at the Small Business Administration Roundtable on Domain Names (March 1, 2000), continued ignorance of the political power of the trademark community and its continuing concern that the dothead community will not take their legitimate interests into consideration will foredoom the whole process of adding new TLDs to failure. Perhaps the production of failure is, sub rosa, the objective of more than a few of the participants in the domain name wars. Kevin J. Connolly The opinions expressed are those of the author, not of Robinson Silverman Pearce Aronsohn & Berman LLP This note is not legal advice. If it were, it would come with an invoice. As usual, please disregard the trailer which follows. ********************************************************************** The information contained in this electronic message is confidential and is or may be protected by the attorney-client privilege, the work product doctrine, joint defense privileges, trade secret protections, and/or other applicable protections from disclosure. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution or reproduction of this com- munication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communi- cation in error, please immediately notify us by calling our Help Desk at 212-541-2000 ext.3314, or by e-mail to helpdesk@rspab.com ********************************************************************** NOTICE: This e-mail message and all attachments transmitted with it may contain legally privileged and confidential information intended solely for the use of the addressee. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any reading, dissemination, distribution, copying, or other use of this message or its attachments is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately by telephone (404-881-7000) or by electronic mail (postmaster@alston.com), and delete this message and all copies and backups thereof. Thank you. ======================================================= ------------------------------ End of WG-C-DIGEST V1 #34 *************************