FC: Esther Dyson responds to new top-level domain suggestions

[Declan McCullagh <declan () well com>]

[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/
--------------------------------------------------------------------------