Interesting People mailing list archives
IP: This was our [ Consumer Project on Technology] take on .us
From: David Farber <dave () farber net>
Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2001 18:38:15 -0400
Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2001 18:32:13 -0400 From: James Love <love () cptech org> Organization: http://www.cptech.org To: "Farber, David" <farber () cis upenn edu> Subject: This was our take on .us Manon Anne Ress Essential Information P.O. Box 19405 Washington, DC 20036 James Love Consumer Project on Technology P.O. Box 19367 Washington, DC 20036 July 27, 2001 The Honorable Donald L. Evans Secretary of Commerce U.S. Department of Commerce 1401 Constitution Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20230 Dear Secretary Evans: Essential Information and the Consumer Project on Technology are Washington, DC-based non-profit organizations founded by Ralph Nader. Our organizations are involved in a number of projects concerning the Internet and E-commerce, much of which is documented on the CPTech web page at http://www.cptech.org. We are writing to express our concerns regarding the Department of Commerce's Request for Quotation (RFQ) [SB1335-01-Q-0740] for services to establish centralized management and coordination of the .us top-level domain (usTLD), to propose specific policies regarding the management of .us, and to join others in requesting an extension of the July 27, 2001 deadline for applications of the future management of the .us TLD. Today the US national domain, .us, is used almost exclusively for state and local governments, schools and libraries. It is a resource rightfully regarded by the Internet community as a national and public space, rather than simply another profit opportunity for speculators. However, because it is also a potentially lucrative business, the re-delegation of .us has attracted those more interested in profits than the public good. We believe the current RFQ poses threats to free speech, as well as privacy - issues that may not trouble some commercial concerns, but which do concern the people who use the Internet. The ICANN Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) is not appropriate for .us TLD registrants. Many UDRP panels are international and take positions that are contrary to US public policy, particularly as it relates to the US First Amendment, but also with respect to US traditions in trade mark policy, as they relate, for example, to the use of generic names. We have outlined a number of such opinions at http://www.cptech.org/ecom/icann/domaindisputes/ domaindisputes.html. For example, consider the opinion in Kwasizabantu.org, where the UDRP panel said: "The admitted nature of the use of the domain names ... includes alternative views and indeed critical views concerning ... [KwaSizabantu] and its activities. The Panel holds such activity amounts to tarnishing the activities associated with the trademark or service mark "KwaSizabantu" ... Therefore, ... [Rost] does not establish any rights or legitimate interests ..." Certainly in the USA, offering critical views is still considered a legitimate interest. Regarding privacy policies, we ask that the registry for .us develop the least restrictive privacy methods for protecting copyright interests. This is quite important, as one expects the expanded .us domain space to include a much greater scope for personal use, and there is already significant pressure from the E-commerce sector to strip everyone of every notion of privacy that one cannot just leave this up to the whims of the registry. To the degree that the registry is required to provide information on domain name owners, it should chose the method that does the least violence to personal privacy. Also, there are important policy issues concerning the economics of the domain space - in particular, how domain name users will be protected from exorbitant pricing. Another important issue is how to fairly manage any surpluses that are likely to be available, once .us is rescued from its incredibly poor current management scheme. First of all, it is important to raise our concerns that the government and ICANN have both deliberately created a false scarcity in domain name space, to benefit a handful of Internet registries. As you know, the Internet Top Level Domain (TDL) space is extremely limited, given what is technologically possible. This is typically justified by a range of insincere and easily refutable claims that this scarcity is somehow needed to maintain Internet stability. As everyone is well aware, the current artificial scarcity has been designed to create rents for the handful of businesses that control the existing Internet domain name space. Clearly the one firm that has benefited the most, to the tune of billions in stock market valuation, is Verisign, which now controls the registry for .com, .net and .org, while managing other registries. One major objective of the .us re-delegation would be to ensure that someone other than Verisign runs, manages and operates .us, so that there is more competition. We would hope that the .us TLD, the official US country code, be managed by a non-profit Registry that would not have the incentive to charge high prices for domain names. However, if a profit making firm is given this resource, the government needs to regulate or limit the prices, or explain why people are paying a commercial entity large fees to use the .us domain. These registration fees are real money, and we resent having to pay high prices for something that the seller does not create or add value to. There may be alternative methods of making this whole system less of a rip off. For example, the plan could be to have an unlimited number of second level domains auctioned off, with the proceeds going into a fund, to be spent according to the wishes of the end user domain name holders. For example, everyone with a third level domain .us, in this system, could vote on how the surplus could be spent, in an electronic referendum, which would be populist, fair, and not subject to the typical favoritism that so often is associated with ICANN. Second, it would also make sense to provide the not-for-profit sector with some of the second level domains, for particular public uses and civil society sectors. For example, union.us could go to the unions, charity.us, lib.us, museum.us or others could be given to umbrella groups that could manage the pricing and allocation of domains for relevant constituencies. This would be better than a centralized system run by some socially clueless technology firm. Sincerely, Manon Ress James Love CC: Joseph L. Widdup, NIST -- Manon Anne Ress mress () essential org, voice: 1.202.387.8030 _______________________________________________ Non-Commercial Top Level Domains mailing list nc-tlds () lists essential org http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/nc-tlds
For archives see: http://www.interesting-people.org/
Current thread:
- IP: This was our [ Consumer Project on Technology] take on .us David Farber (Jul 28)