Re: Conflict resolution?

[George Michaelson <ggm@connect.com.au>]

As technocrats, many of us believe that DNS names are just symbol strings
under a constraint of hierarchical dispersion. There are some useful
side-effects of DNS *implementation* like caching and distributed DB, but
the only attribute the internet depends on is global uniqueness for FQDN
and timely name:value lookup. If sufficient work could have sustainted 
globally distributed /etc/hosts files and provided linear search replacements
to prevent telnetd timing out at login in a way more simple than choosing
to deploy bind, we would have done that back in '85. It didn't prove tenable.

Real world issues about IPR are depressing. I wish we could find a way to
ignore them. I suppose this process is recognition thats not going to be
possible. Simplistic assertions that IBM can "own" the symbol-sequence
IBM in all contexts of FQDN need to be refuted and refuted fast. Equally
assertions that *.IBM.BIZ can be allocated to another owner of a registered
name that can be acronymized as IBM is acceptable will need very very
careful consideration (and I suspect rejection).

What we need is the middle ground. Thats where the IPR experts come in.

	What level of compromise can we expect to sustain regarding who
	can claim a value under an arbitrary iTLD?

	Does the same level of "ownership" exist one,two,three... levels
	below any given iTLD?
	
	Does registration in a competent national authority of your IPR
	entitle you to a world-wide (which is what iTLD means) protection?	
	
What is NOT an issue IAHC wants to be addressing is how people make money
fast. I think we can and should choose to quietly ignore any assertion 
regarding iTLD where the prime object is to define a cost centre and assert
ownership of it, and an associated income stream. If this process degenerates
into a carve-up of all 3 and 4 letter sequences across some bidding process
under NASDAQ rules, we have met the enemy and they is us.

What IS an issue is how iTLD issues will be reflected under the ISO 2-letter
DNS spaces. Its not realistic to imagine there will be no convergeance of
interests and issues here. That doesn't mean IAHC has to address and fix
ISO-2 letter problems, but it has to take account of the issues.

If anybody had suggested to me I would find myself mourning the days when
a hostname could be YKXA and that for all users, the meaning was immediate
I would have laughed. Now, I find myself strangely attracted to the core
attributes of DNS and FQDN: shortness, plausible guessibility, consistency.

We lost the battle when URL's began to appear on beercans and commercials. 
At that stage, to assert that http://schlitz.com/ and an equally functional
http://some.isp.com/~schlitz are synonymous, or that info@schlitz.com and
and a form like schlitz@some.isp.com are identical in value to the IPR owner
of schlitz was nonsensical.

IAHC is not about technology. Its about policy in a world of divergeant
interests and rights. I suspect its going to be a flawed outcome for somebody
come what may. Lets hope that the ultimate winner is the userbase and the
internet, rather than he with the biggest law-team...

-George

--
George Michaelson         |  connect.com.au pty/ltd
Email: ggm@connect.com.au |  c/o AAPT,
Phone: +61 7 3834 9976    |  level 8, the Riverside Centre,
  Fax: +61 7 3834 9908    |  123 Eagle St, Brisbane QLD 4000