Re: Need for NSI forced policy change

[Simon Higgs <simon@higgs.com>]

At 4:44 AM -0500 1/1/97, Carl Oppedahl wrote:

> The reason that bringing the NSI policy into the discussion is simple --
> the NSI policy is in place now, and it gives rise to a continuous, ongoing,
> wholly unjustified risk for all of the three quarters of a million members
> of the Internet community who, like you and me, have domain names.
>
> IAHC's proposed trademark domain dispute policy is quite interesting as a
> planning exercise, but it affects approximately zero people today or next
> week or next month or next year.  NSI's terribly flawed policy affects
> 750,000 domain name owners right now, and NSI shows no sign of getting a
> clue about it (despite having its head handed to it in the two clue.com
> lawsuits).
>
> I have been delighted to see the literally hundreds of postings debating
> the large points and fine points of the IAHC proposal, for the simple
> reason that it means people are finally thinking about this issue, almost a
> year after the first domain name lawsuit in which a court was asked to
> order NSI not to carry out its policy.
>
> I am confident that everybody in the Internet community (except, of course,
> NSI) is clear that the mistakes of NSI should not be allowed to be repeated
> elsewhere by other newly created registries.  60-day period or no 60-day
> period, that mistake won't be propagated further, I am confident.
>
> But the fact that the IAH Committee has made a draft recommendation means
> nothing for the 750,000 present-day domain name owners, because NSI
> apparently continues to lack a clue.  For the Internet community, then, the
> debate should not be limited (as you seem to suggest) to whether there is
> or is not a waiting period recited in a draft document that might have its
> first effect in a year or two for some newly created TLD.  For the Internet
> community, the debate should include such issues as:
>
> 1.  What pressure can be brought, by IAHC or the Internet community
> generally, to induce NSI to get a clue and scrap its policy, which the
> International Trademark Association has termed a "failure"?  What can be
> done to force NSI to revert to its (and all domain name registries') first
> policy, which was RFC 1591, or to the IAHC proposal?  The reason this is
> important is that nearly every present-day domain name owner (including you
> with svensson.org and me with oppedahl.com) is at never-ending risk of
> arbitrary and capricious risk of loss of a domain name.  It is a risk that
> harms the entire Internet community for every day it persists.
>

These questions have been avoided by the IAHC so far, or just plain
ignored. Some of the answers to the questions Perry and other members
of the IAHC refuse to answer sheds light on this whole area. The whole
accountability of IANA and the NSF has been questioned many times, but
no concrete answer has been forthcoming.

> 2.  Since NSI seems to be stubbornly clinging to its policy despite clear
> evidence that it is fatally flawed, what can be done to ensure that its
> little exclusive plaything and cash cow, the COM domain, is taken from it
> no later than 1998 when the NSF contract expires?
>

Dave Crocker has effectively said nothing will be done, and that there
is no relationship between the IAHC and the NSF, in spite of a member
of the NSF being on the IAHC representing the FNC. I'd very much like
him to rebutt that statement, and show that something is being done.

> Issues 1 and 2 are, I suggest, as deserving of the time of the Internet
> community and the commenters to the IAHC proposal as efforts to fine-tune
> the 60-day part of the IAHC draft.
>

I've said in the past and I'll repeat it over and over again until
something gets done about it. If the IAHC tackles the .COM issue they
will solve 95% of the issues they currently face.

Regards,

Simon

--
If at first you don't succeed, skydiving is not for you.