[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[wg-b] Re: [wg-c] TUCOWS.com Comments on IPC Sunrise Proposal

Ross: I have a .wav file containing a round a vigorous applause. May I send
it to the list?

This is a remarkable and (unfortunately)accurate statement, not only of
where ICANN is now, but also of how and why it was formed.

m i l t o n   m u e l l e r // m u e l l e r @ s y r . e d u
syracuse university          http://istweb.syr.edu/~mueller/

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ross Wm. Rader" <ross@tucows.com>
To: <mpalage@infonetworks.com>; <wg-c@dnso.org>
Cc: <discuss-list@opensrs.org>
Sent: Saturday, April 15, 2000 5:51 PM
Subject: [wg-c] TUCOWS.com Comments on IPC Sunrise Proposal

> 15 April, 2000
> Michael Palage
> Chair, Working Group B/Registrars Constituency Secretariat
> Domain Name Supporting Organization
> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
> Michael,
> TUCOWS.com Inc. is responding in the limited time available to your
> request that we comunicate our views concerning the latest proposals from
> the Intellectual Property Constituency, called "sunrise plus twenty."
> While we are aware that you are acting as best you can in limited
> circumstances of budget and time, TUCOWS must protest the inadequate
> consultation that has taken place in regard to these proposals, and must
> on grounds of substance reject them in their entirety. We find it
> increasingly anomalous that the secretary of the registrars association is
> acting to compromise the interests of IP holders with the interests of the
> vast mass of Internet users in this way.
> The essence of ICANN's problem is the disproportionate attention which is
> being given inside the working groups, and, increasingly outside, in
> private conferences, to the pretensions of the IP community to stall the
> process of domain name expansion, on grounds that we and our Internet
> users consider to be dubious and, in some cases, in outright error: error
> both as to policy as regards the future direction of the Internet, and
> more fundamentally, as to their power to hold up domain name expansion
> based on the monopoly of the NSI over the root server.
> You have received commentary from John Berryhill, which, in our view,
> devastates the position of the IPC that they are entitled to extra-legal
> privileges in the matter of establishing domain names for famous names,
> and lately, for all trade mark holders in all countries.
> The IPC's contentions that trade mark holders are owed a special set of
> privileges regarding domain names, different from and superior to those
> worked out in national legislatures, is not something that other users of
> the Internet need to accept. Moreover, it is unnecessary. The fastest way
> to eradicate the problem that the IPC pretends to solve is to have a
> rapid, large expansion of domain names.  The IPC is threatened by this
> approach because it diminshes the value of what they are protecting, and
> the value fo the services they render.
> The issue is not, as  they suppose, "confusion" in the marketplace, or
> the protection of consumers. It is the protection of the economic
> position of intellectual property lawyers.
> What we are actually observing in the saga of domain name expansion is a
> power-grab of major proportions over the architecture of the Internet,
> using ICANN not so much as a representative forum for IP interests as the
> embodimenet of IP lawyers' interests. This tendency is not good for the
> Net, for Internet users, for small businesses which need the increase of
> namespace, and ultimately it will lead, if unchecked by common sense and
> contrary interests, to the avoidance of the DNS and the downfall of ICANN.
> The policy that should be followed in relation to IP interests is this:
> no privilege shall be granted to any trade mark or famous name holder by
> ICANN that is not available under domestic trade mark law. We understand
> that this principle will need adjustment to accord with the global nature
> of top level domains, but by sticking to it ICANN will do better for the
> Internet, for millions of users, and even for the interests of IP owners,
> than a policy of restriction.
> TUCOWS has been supporting reasonable compromise between IP owners and
> domain name expansion for some time. On reflection, We have decided that
> we are not going to get domain name expansion in this way, and that we are
> in fact acceding to a takeover of the political processes of ICANN by a
> set of interests that oppose what the Internet stands for. We urge you to
> reconsider the nature of the compromises you may be making, and what you
> may consider to be realistic. To us at TUCOWS, compromise with the kinds
> of proposals we are seeing coming from the IPC will get us nowhere.
> Yours sincerely,
> Ross Wm. Rader
> Director, Assigned Names Division
> TUCOWS.com Inc.
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> Ross Wm. Rader                     http://www.domaindirect.com
> Director, Assigned Names Division       http://www.opensrs.org
> TUCOWS.com Inc.                     http://www.domainwatch.com
> ross@tucows.com                    http://www.domainsurfer.com
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> t. (416) 531-2697 x 335                      f. (416) 531-5584
> ----------------"Because-People-Need-Names"-------------------