Politech mailing list archives
FC: Esther Dyson responds to new top-level domain suggestions
From: Declan McCullagh <declan () well com>
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 02:02:25 -0400
[Apologies for the delay in sending out these messages, some of which would have been more timely earlier. I was speaking at the American Bar Association's annual meeting in New York City on Monday and only got back early Tuesday morning. I've also been busy upgrading mysql on my server (to the 3.23.20-beta distribution, which appears to be as reliable as the production version) and catching up on a Perl coding backlog. --Declan]
*********** To: declan () well com From: edyson () edventure com (Esther Dyson) Subject: Re: FC: Business group opposes creation of .union top-level domain Cc: politech () vorlon mit edu, info () lpa org, webmaster () lpa org, love () cptech org Date: Sun, 9 Jul 2000 12:10:46 -0400 FWIW, there is no problem with having (competitive) TLDs that decide who can register. But there *would be* a problem with having ICANN decide that - and that is not the plan. The other issues are the assumption that if you create, say, .xxx, that also determines what can happen in all domains that are *not* .xxx - a very dangerous notion. ANd yes, there are issues with who decides who is "legitimate" if there is no alternative....In the old days, you could simply *exist,* without your very name needing to be "legitimated" or specifically not legitimated (althoughthere are countries where the government tells you what you may or may not call your kids, FWIW)..... All this argues (speaking FOR MYSELF only and not for ICANN) for a profusion of TLDs without requiring the imprimatur of some formal, sanctified legitimacy - although it would have the downside of a more confusing world. Heck, this whole Internet thing is confusing!! what should we do? That's why we are all looking forward to some interesting discussions in Yokohama. Come join us, online or in person! Esther Dyson Esther Dyson Always make new mistakes! chairman, EDventure Holdings chairman, Internet Corp. for Assigned Names & Numbers edyson () edventure com 1 (212) 924-8800 -- 1 (212) 924-0240 fax 104 Fifth Avenue (between 15th and 16th Streets; 20th floor) New York, NY 10011 USA http://www.edventure.com http://www.icann.org PC Forum: 25 to 28 March 2001, Scottsdale (Phoenix), Arizona Book: "Release 2.1: A design for living in the digital age" High-Tech Forum in Europe: November 1 to 3 - Barcelona ***********
Date: Sun, 9 Jul 2000 12:10:03 -0400 To: declan () well com From: "James M. Ray" <jray () e-gold com> Subject: Re: FC: Business group opposes creation of .union top-level domain >One structural problem with this proposal -- and I'm not taking a >position on what other merits it may or may not have -- is that it >puts ICANN and/or the U.S. Commerce Department in the position of >deciding who can or can't register sites in a new top-level >domain. (Only "legitimate" unions are supposed to be allowed to do >so.) ... This only proves that the lefties know about the National Taxpayer's Union, Declan. :^) JMR -- Regards, James M. Ray <jray () e-gold com> or <jray () omnipay net> OmniPay VP of Spec. Ops. http://www.TraderJim.net/PGPKey.html Try a FREE account: http://www.e-gold.com/e-gold.asp?cid=101574 Was this $0.02 worth? http://rootworks.com/twocentsworth.cgi?jmr
**********
Date: Sun, 9 Jul 2000 12:53:02 -0400 From: t byfield <tbyfield () panix com> To: Declan McCullagh <declan () well com> Subject: Re: FC: Business group opposes creation of .union top-level domain User-Agent: Mutt/1.2i declan () well com (Sun 07/09/00 at 10:25 AM -0500): > One structural problem with this proposal -- and I'm not taking a > position on what other merits it may or may not have -- is that it > puts ICANN and/or the U.S. Commerce Department in the position of > deciding who can or can't register sites in a new top-level > domain. (Only "legitimate" unions are supposed to be allowed to do > so.) As a general rule, it seems to make sense not to have this kind > of veto power and day-to-day oversight by the Internet "authorities." declan-- jamie love's proposal doesn't put ICANN and/or the DoC in any position at all. they put themselves in that position; jamie's proposal just reveals very clearly how untenable it ultimately is. we've arrived at this situation because the of what john gilmore has called the "congenital confusion between trade- marks and domain names." once the intellectual property hounds woke up to the net, they did everything in their power to retard the expansion of the namespace through the addition of new top-level domains. the result--and ICANN has played an instrument role in perpetuating it--is a hothouse environment where artificial problems flourish. prime among them is this pseudo-dilemma in which registries take on the secondary role of giving their imprimatur to the activities carried out under a domain. ask yourself this simple question: do you want NSI policing what you do under a domain? chances are good that the answer is no. well, why would you want anyone else doing it? ok, now ask yourself: do you want NSI or some other entity policing what someone else is doing under THEIR domain? well, there are a *lot* of people who *do* want that, and the intellectual property hounds have been leading that pack. the idea that there might be a realm--for example, an entire top-level domain--that's simply off-limits to them and their concerns is anathema to them (for example a .non or .pub TLD: non-trademarked, public domain). the problem is, when nothing is off-limits, the result is: *everything*. the IP lobbies' refusal to tolerate *any* exception to their claims pretty much boils down to laying claim to the entire universe. if there were a .jup TLD for jupiter, Ford would want it, lest car-buyers on jupiter be 'confused' about their 'trademark.' you have to admire ambition on that scale, but it makes for really crappy policy, which is what ICANN has been making. the solution is to chuck the whole IP issue out and make gTLDs as trivial as domains. if you're really insane enough to want to run a registry for a gTLD, go ahead. and if you want to impose limitations on who can get a domain under it, go ahead; or if you want to hand them out on a first-come, first- served basis, go ahead. the result would be a situation in which companies would do what they *should* be doing--focus on their 'sore competency'--rather than using the domain name system as a mechanism for policing what others say and do. and all those poor 'confused' consumers who manage to find their way through labyrinthine supermarkets awash in competing products will somehow manage to find their way around the net. cheers, t - \|/ ____ \|/ @~/ oO \~@ /_( \__/ )_\ \_U__/
***********
Reply-To: <tedbar () technoartisan net> From: "Theodore Baar" <tedbar () technoartisan net> To: <declan () well com> Subject: Legitimate Unions Date: Sun, 9 Jul 2000 22:58:05 -0400 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal Ah yes. By all means there should be a top level domain dedicated to organizations that are fully and historically penetrated by organized crime, having over the past few years fielded thugs on the streets of several major cities to beat up their opponents and, best of all, democrats to the man. Tell me Declan? When they knock on your door will you remain so objective? Of course they could bring the same keen intellectuial abilities and level of success that the NEA/AFT bring to our educational system. Mit freundlichen Gruessen Meilleures salutations Best regards Ted Baar -------------------------------------------- Theodore Baar Omegacom, Inc. tedbar () omegacom com 617-783-5227 Fax:617-249-0909 -------------------------------------------
***********
Date: Sun, 09 Jul 2000 18:53:14 -0400 From: NBII <afn41391 () afn org> Organization: Anarchists United Against Chaos, Ltd. X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.04 (WinNT; I) To: dcrocker () brandenburg com CC: declan/politech <declan () well com> Subject: Re: IP: Civil liberties groups launch e-democracy, ICANN project >A little bit of rhetoric is as bad as a little bit of knowledge. > >Since ICANN relates only to IP addresses and DNS administration -- and >notably has nothing at all to do with content -- how can it have any >"significant impact on the free expression and privacy rights of Internet >users". > >Rather than indulging in hyperbole, perhaps Barry would like to provide >some basis for his sweeping claim? > >d/ Dave, what, are you on drugs?? The loss of *property rights* is a substantial loss, period, and the fact that someone with lots of money can come along and sue you off your property is something that, so far, ICANN has not prevented nor attempted to address. If I'm driving along the interstate, and I get off at a pretty much "empty" exit, and look around and say to myself -- "Ya know, *this* looks like a good place for a McDonalds. I think I'll buy all the land hereabouts." and I do so -- then, 5 years later, McD's comes to me, as property owner, and they don't like the price I'm asking for the land -- do they get to go to the judge and say to him: "Hey, NO FAIR!! He *knew* we were going to want that property! Give it to us, judge!" and HAVE THE JUDGE DO ANYTHING BUT LAUGH THEM OUT OF COURT??? Of **course** not. But this has, so far, not held true either in the courts or in any of ICANN's proposed rules. There's no shortage of names for the DNS -- McD's can get www.McDonalds.cc or whatever -- Hell, they have enough money, combined with BK and all the others, to *make* their own (.fff, for "fast food franchise", say) and set up *whatever* rules they want for its structure. This protects property rights, and is the solution they should be relegated to, given their lack of foresight on the issue. Hell, it will probably be moot to some extent in 10 years anyway, since the current URL system has weaknesses that alternate systems may arise to address -- but, in the meantime, you will have established a legal precedent and an attitude over the Net which is not a good one -- that property rights (ownership of something paid for in good faith) are not relevant (and no, I don't buy the idea that "trademark" rules apply to URLs --- there will be far too many legitimate collisions if you attempt to do that -- Declan's recent example of a Bible site vs. Brazil's "Corinthians" soccer team is just such an example -- its owner is clearly not a "squatter" of any kind -- it has to be first come, first serve, simply because that was the rules it was set up under, and it's the only way to resolve legitimate conflicts of interest). Strong private property rights are critical to freedom, and they are always weakest in totalitarian states. Let's not make the Net into one, hey? -- ------- --------- ------- -------- ------- ------- ------- Nicholas Bretagna II mailto:afn41391 () afn org
********* -------------------------------------------------------------------------- POLITECH -- the moderated mailing list of politics and technology To subscribe, visit http://www.politechbot.com/info/subscribe.html This message is archived at http://www.politechbot.com/ --------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current thread:
- FC: Esther Dyson responds to new top-level domain suggestions Declan McCullagh (Jul 11)