From: owner-wg-c-digest@dnso.org (WG-C-DIGEST) To: wg-c-digest@dnso.org Subject: WG-C-DIGEST V1 #68 Reply-To: Sender: owner-wg-c-digest@dnso.org Errors-To: owner-wg-c-digest@dnso.org Precedence: bulk WG-C-DIGEST Saturday, April 1 2000 Volume 01 : Number 068 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2000 11:12:45 -0500 From: James Love Subject: Re: [wg-c] Excellent suggestion from slashdot -- apparently not in 10-23 report I would support the general thrust of Adam Megacz's comment. However, there should be space for exceptions. .gov, .int, .edu and other restricted domains are among the types of exceptions I am talking about, as well as the .usbanks (the US FDIC proposed), or the .union proposal (is .naa one of these?), and some others I have heard about but which have not yet surfaced, in both the commerical and non-commerical (and mixed) areas. In a sense, it would seem as though the general rule, for unrestricted TLDs, would make sense as Adam has proposed. However, the TLD space should accommodate other management systems in the restricted TLD space. I don't think a one size fits all system is appropriate for all of the TLD space. Providing a framework for exceptions isn't trivial, but I think it is quite important to do so. In the absence of a no ownership rule for the unrestricted TLDs, one would have to think hard about hoarding and concentration issues, if the TLD space becomes wide open. I could imagine applications for millions of TLDs by a single entity. Jamie megacz@cmu.edu wrote: > > Forgive me if this is a FAQ; I'm new to the WG. > > I can't take credit for what follows; I saw it on a slashdot.org > comment, but the comment was moderated WAY down, so very few people > probably read it. > > Why not permit an unlimited number of TLD's, on the condition that > nobody can *own* a TLD. Hence I can buy smith.family (and implicitly, > *.smith.family), but NOT *.family. I would be able to do this even if > nobody else had ever registered a name under the family TLD. > > The nice part is that it brings the trademark dispute back into proper > focus. Apple computer does NOT have a god-given right to everything > with the word "Apple" on it -- they have a right to everything with > the word "Apple" on it WITHIN THE CONTEXT of the personal computer > industry. Hence, apple.computers would obviously belong to Mr. Jobs' > company, while apple.landscaping would belong to the guy down the > street who will redo your front yard. I'm not suggesting a new dispute > resolution process; just a namespace change that would make dispute > resolution infinitely simpler. AFAIK no other solution breaks down > trademarks *by industry*, as the trademark law explicitly states (or > if they do, they allow for a finite number of industries, which can > become cumbersome in the future). > > I dunno, I saw a lot of elegance in it. I read the 10-23 WG-C report, > and Prop. B seems to come *close* to this, but doesn't step out and > overtly state the fact that individuals could [implicitly] create new > TLD's and that a TLD can't be *owned*. > > Is this a FAQ, an idea currently being considered, or a new concept on > this list? If there are any known problems with it, what are they? > > - aj > > -- > "Nobody has any 'Rights'. We are entitled only to Liberties" > Adam Megacz -- for current phone/postal, see > http://www.cmu.edu/cgi-bin/finger?q=megacz@andrew.cmu.edu - -- ======================================================= James Love, Director | http://www.cptech.org Consumer Project on Technology | mailto:love@cptech.org P.O. Box 19367 | voice: 1.202.387.8030 Washington, DC 20036 | fax: 1.202.234.5176 ======================================================= ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2000 12:02:42 -0500 From: Eric Brunner Subject: Re: [wg-c] OFF TOPIC: Jamie Love on Microsoft settlement Thanks for the note Marty. Having been part of the putting together of the first X/Open Consortia, missed the Hamilton Group, doing the second X/Open Consortia (subsumming the HG effort), the conduct remedy isn't one I hoped the DoJ would settle for. It lacks point and edge. If the same line of thinking were applied to the DNS monopoly market, it must also yeild something along the lines of reform of NSI's conduct, with no substantive change in the numbers of distinct business or non-business entities involved, nor any substantive changes in their numbers, except through some slight-of-the-free-markets-hand, which is rather iffy to bet policy on, whether the policy is pro-marks, pro-jurisdictions, or even pro-bono. Heck, didn't the NSI SRS meet the conduct remedy? Shouldn't we all smile and go home? (no) Cheers, Eric ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 01 Apr 2000 09:33:48 +0900 From: "Robert F. Connelly" Subject: Re: [wg-c] Working Group C agenda At 11:14 30-03-2000 -0500, Jonathan Weinberg wrote: > [1] Is it useful, as a general matter, for us to agree on some > meaningful >set of principles to guide the relevant ICANN body or process in selecting >new TLDs or TLD registry/pairs? It seems to me that, in the context of the >last consensus call, most folks indicated that their answer was YES. Dear Jonathan: I vote yes. Re part 2, the Sheppard/Kleinman principles seem to be adequate. Regards, BobC P.S. The word "Principles" is misspelled "Princilials" in the archives. I don't think it is intended to be "principals". ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 1 Apr 2000 14:25:28 -0500 From: "Milton Mueller" Subject: Re: [wg-c] Working Group C agenda - ----- Original Message ----- >From: "Jonathan Weinberg" > >The first thing I'd like us to take care of is some resolution on the Sheppard/Kleiman >principles, >. > > >[1] Is it useful, as a general matter, for us to agree on some meaningful >set of principles to guide the relevant ICANN body or process in selecting >new TLDs or TLD registry/pairs? Yes. >[2] Assuming that it would be desirable for the WG to agree on some >meaningful set of principles, is this set the right one? I can think of >two classes of objections to the current iteration of the principles. The >first class would consist of arguments that the principles incorporate >undesirable policy choices. I think the principles incorporate a very good set of policy choices. They are, of course, vague and there is some tension between some of them, but they are as close as this group is going to get to an agreement. >The second class would consist of arguments >that the principles are too general, and won't meaningfully guide (much >less constrain) the decisionmaker. As noted before, selecting 10 registries out of the hundreds if not thousands of possible applications that would conform to the principles gives ICANN a huge amount of discretion. No definition of principles, no matter how well drafted, is going to change that. However, the principles are meaningful. They also represent a carefully crafted middle ground between various stakeholders. It is useful to have the WG go on record with them. The principles will be incorporated into ICANN's records, reported in the press, discussed by the NC and the ICANN Board in voting on the issue, and so on. ------------------------------ End of WG-C-DIGEST V1 #68 *************************