Paragraph 2f

[Antony Van Couvering <avc@netnamesusa.com>]

At 05:45 PM 6/19/97 -0700, Simon Higgs wrote:
>
>Yeah. But what's your point? Do you want me to prostitute myself like
>Netnames by signing the MoU? Remember, I've always said I'll sign it
>when it coherently describes "the right thing to do" for the good of
>the net. Until then I'd rather use blunt instruments and "excessive"
>calibre weapons (but they're way too messy in public so I'll just bitch
>and moan instead). ;-)
>

Thanks for the gratuitous slur, Simon.  I'm sure you find better and more
profitable ways than we do to prostitute yourself, for more money and less
work.

Unbelievable as it may seem to you, I find the gTLD-MoU a public-spirited
document, written with the interests of the net in mind.  I see it as a
work-in-progress, a step in the right direction with a clear path for
further improvement.  I see the process it describes as accessible and
representative, via the PAB. I see it as having an internationalist
perspective, and I see it as a document that tries to balance the many
competing interests that have claims on the domain namespace.   

I do not see it attempting to solve just one problem at the expense of the
others.  

Now, what here can you object to?  Yes, I know there are other parts to it,
but as a statement of principles what can you object to?

[from the gTLD-MoU]

SECTION 2. - Principles

The following principles are adopted: 

   a.the Internet Top Level Domain (TLD) name space is a public resource
and is subject to the public trust; 
   b.any administration, use and/or evolution of the Internet TLD space is
a public policy issue and should be carried out in the interests and
service of the public; 
   c.related public policy needs to balance and represent the interests of
the current and future stakeholders in the Internet name space; 
   d.the current and future Internet name space stakeholders can benefit
most from a self-regulatory and market-oriented approach to Internet domain
name
     registration services; 
   e.registration services for the gTLD name space should provide for
global distribution of registrars; 
   f.a policy shall be implemented that a second-level domain name in any
of the CORE-gTLDs which is identical or closely similar to an alphanumeric
string that, for the purposes of this policy, is deemed to be
internationally known, and for which demonstrable intellectual property
rights exist, may be held or used only by, or with the authorization of,
the owner of such demonstrable intellectual property rights. Appropriate
consideration shall be given to possible use of such a second-level domain
name by a third party that, for the purposes of this policy, is deemed to
have sufficient rights. 


The only objectionable paragraph, to my mind, is the last one, 2.f.  If
paragraph 2.f. looks like it's in agony, it is.  The language is legalistic
in comparison to the other statements, the tone is aloof; there are efforts
at fudging (e.g., "for the purposes of this policy"); and it leaves you
wondering who.  Who decides what consideration is "appropriate."?  Who
determines what the "purposes of this policy" are?   It is an uncomfortable
compromise on the issue of trademarks and intellectual property, so dear to
your heart Simon.

This has also been your favorite pulpit from which to chastise IAHC/iPOC. I
have read your drafts and I think you have stated many of the problems
cogently.  In particular, I like your analysis of the impossibility of
mapping a fluid and overlapping set of trademarks to a domain namespace
that will tolerate unique names only.

Unfortunately, you then go on to propose just such a solution.  You would
have trademarks mapped to a complicated set of domain hierarchies
corresponding to one or more trademark hierachies.   But do you really
think that Coca-Cola (for instance) is going to consent to a domain name
like coca-cola.soft.bev when it could have something like coca-cola.com, or
that Joe's Website Builders will accept joes.services.internet.comp in
place of joes.web -- all in service of just one goal, to map trademarks to
domain names?  Do you think that they should consent?

Paragraph 2f doesn't solve the trademark problem because it can't.  It
can't subjugate all other issues just to solve this one.   It does take a
stab at the trademark issues because the IAHC process was born, in part,
from an overwhelming mandate to try to come up with workable dispute
resolution policies.  

Paragraph 2f is a compromise because it has to be.  For a total solution
you need either to abolish the domain namespace altogether, or to adopt a
cumbersome and non-intuitive trademark naming scheme.  Any takers?  Both of
these are complete non-starters from a cultural, commercial, or utilitarian
point of view. 

What I like about the gTLD-MoU is not Paragraph 2f, but that it has a
mechanism for amending itself, stemming from the wide representation on
iPOC and eventually POC.  

Any concerned interest: PAB (2 seats)
Registrars: CORE (2 seats)
Legal: WIPO, INTA (1 seat each)
Governmental: ITU (2 seats)
Technical: IAB, IANA (2 seats each)
Internet Users: ISOC (2 seats)

Internet users gain an additional benefit from the market competition
between registars.

This looks like a good mix to me.  These are all interests with different
aims, different agendas.  It's not surprising to me that there was a
compromise on trademarks.  I don't love it, but I am pleased to have found
that there is a chance for me, and anyone else who cares, to participate.

Regards,

Antony

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Antony Van Couvering | avc@netnamesusa.com
NETNAMES USA - International Domain Name Registry
430 West 14th St., Suite 401 New York, NY 10014 USA
Phone Toll-free 888-NETNAMES | Intl: +1 212 627-4599 
Fax +1 212 627-5744 | http://www.netnamesusa.com
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++