FC: ICANN Update: Putting names in a historical perspective, and more

[Declan McCullagh <declan () well com>]

[Also see Michael Froomkin's "Beware the ICANN Board Squatters" at:
http://personal.law.miami.edu/~froomkin/boardsquat.htm  --Declan]

*******

Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2000 06:07:30 +0900
To: declan () well com
From: Ted Nelson <ted () xanadu net>
Subject: Red Whatnot Symbol (Icann hardly imagine

Declan,

Maybe you knew all about this, but I had no IDEA such a noncontroversial
(!?) idea would generate such problems.

Puts the ICANN stuff into perspective.

Best, Ted N.

-----
( from editorial in the Japan Times, 00.10.11)

What's in a symbol?

"Symbolism," according to Edward N. West in "Outward Signs,"
 his classic study of Christian symbols, "is so powerful that the
 message conveyed, regardless of origin or context, is perfectly clear."

To its lasting regret and perplexity, the Red Cross has found that
 observation to be all too true.  When the international humanitarian
 organization was founded in Geneva, Switzerland, in 1864, the symbol
 of a red cross on a white field was adopted, not for its religious
 significance, but-- by reversing the Swiss flag-- as a tribute to that
 country's tradition of neutrality.  In "origin and context," the red cross
 was intended to transcend national borders and religious differences,
 not to suggest them.

It wasn't long before the rest of the world set the idealistic Europeans
 straight-- just 12 years, in fact.  During the Crimean War, the Ottoman
 Turks understandably saw the red cross as an unambiguous Christian
 symbol and at once began using a red crescent on a white ground
 instead, so as not "to give offense to Muslim soldiers."  By the turn
 of the century, other requests were being floated: Persia wanted a
 red lion and sun, Siam a red flame.  Ultimately, the Geneva Convention
 of 1929 officially recognized the red cross, the red crescent and the
 red lion and sun ...  As early as the 1930s, Palestine-- and later Israel--
 wanted the red shield of David, and Afghanistan requested recognition
 of a red mosque.  More recently, India has asked permission to use a
 red swastika and Zimbabwe a red star.  ...

For 50 years, the International Committee of the Red Cross and the
 International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement have acceded
 to none of these requests, fearing that the ensuing circus parade of
 emblems would undercut the whole point of having an emblem at all ...

Representatives of the 189 nations that have signed the Geneva
 Conventions will meet in Geneva on Oct. 25 to consider a draft
 protocol to authorize an additional emblem.  Consisting of two
 facing red chevrons, the new emblem would be "free of any national,
 religious or other connotation," but would also have space for any one
 of the cross, the crescent, the Star of David or a combination of cross
 and crescent.  No other emblems would thereafter be permitted.  In
 time of war, only the chevrons would be used.  The hope is that this
 remarkably clever and creative proposal will finally settle the most
 contentious outstanding anomaly-- the fact that some countries'
 humanitarian organizations have been denied international recognition
 because of an outdated legal impediment. ...


FULL TEXT FOLLOWS ======================
( editorial in the Japan Times, 00.10.11)

What's in a symbol?

"Symbolism," according to Edward N. West in "Outward Signs," his classic
study of Christian symbols, "is so powerful that the message conveyed,
regardless of origin or context, is perfectly clear."

To its lasting regret and perplexity, the Red Cross has found that
 observation to be all too true.  When the international humanitarian
 organization was founded in Geneva, Switzerland, in 1864, the symbol
 of a red cross on a white field was adopted, not for its religious
 significance, but-- by reversing the Swiss flag-- as a tribute to that
 country's tradition of neutrality.  In "origin and context," the red cross
 was intended to transcend national borders and religious differences,
 not to suggest them.

It wasn't long before the rest of the world set the idealistic Europeans
 straight-- just 12 years, in fact.  During the Crimean War, the Ottoman
 Turks understandably saw the red cross as an unambiguous Christian
 symbol and at once began using a red crescent on a white ground
 instead, so as not "to give offense to Muslim soldiers."  By the turn
 of the century, other requests were being floated: Persia wanted a
 red lion and sun, Siam a red flame.  Ultimately, the Geneva Convention
 of 1929 officially recognized the red cross, the red crescent and the
 red lion and sun (although Iran dropped use of the last in 1980).
 This decision was reaffirmed by the 1949 Diplomatic Conference to
 revise the Geneva Conventions, thus closing the door on any further
 proliferation of emblems.  Or so it was hoped.

There was never a chance that more countries would not come
 knocking.  Once Muslim countries had won the right to use an
 explicitly religious and regional symbol, the red cross was, ipso facto,
 made a religious and regional symbol too.  Naturally, there were
 objections to both: As early as the 1930s, Palestine-- and later Israel--
 wanted the red shield of David, and Afghanistan requested recognition
 of a red mosque.  More recently, India has asked permission to use
 a red swastika and Zimbabwe a red star.  Some countries, like
 Kazakstan and Eritrea, want to use both the red cross *and* the
 red crescent.

For 50 years, the International Committee of the Red Cross and the
 International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement have acceded to
 none of these requests, fearing that the ensuing circus parade of
 emblems would undercut the whole point of having an emblem at all:
 to provide a universal, supra-partisan sign that confers clear
 identification and protection.  At present, 176 countries use the
 red cross and 30, including Iran, use the red crescent.  But
 dissatisfaction and pressure have mounted to the point where the
 problem has to be addressed.  At the end of this month, it may finally
 be resolved.

Representatives of the 189 nations that have signed the Geneva
 Conventions will meet in Geneva on Oct. 25 to consider a draft
 protocol to authorize an additional emblem.  Consisting of two facing
 red chevrons, the new emblem would be "free of any national, religious
 or other connotation," but would also have space for any one of the
 cross, the crescent, the Star of David or a combination of cross and
 crescent.  No other emblems would thereafter be permitted.  In time
 of war, only the chevrons would be used.  The hope is that this
 remarkably clever and creative proposal will finally settle the most
 contentious outstanding anomaly-- the fact that some countries'
 humanitarian organizations have been denied international recognition
 because of an outdated legal impediment.

There is some opposition to the plan.  The American Red Cross
 Society, for example, while supporting Israel's claim for recognition
 of the Star of David, rejects the chevron because of its military
 connotations and because it "is also the symbol of an international oil
 company."  Others question why, if the Star of David is added to the
 list of emblems acceptable for use with the double chevron, other
 future signatories to the Geneva Conventions should not press claims
 for further exceptions.

Yet it seems clear that the movement has little choice but to proceed
 with the compromise.  The obvious best solution would be to have
 a single emblem that was universally acceptable, like the Olympic rings.
 But that option was foreclosed on as soon as the red cross, with its
 powerful symbolic resonance, was adopted way back in 1864.  Since
 then, proposals to abandon the cross have met with as much
 opposition as proposals to make it the organization's sole emblem.
 At this point, there is no way forward to but to adopt the overarching
 chevron, or some other indisputably neutral design, and hope that
 in the coming years and decades it will become as recognizable on
 the battlefield as the cross and crescent have been in the 20th century.

It's either that, or the obviously absurd hope that there will be no more
 battlefields.

[END]


_________________________________________
Theodor Holm Nelson
Project Professor, Keio University SFC Campus, Fujisawa, Japan
Visiting Professor, University of Southampton, England
 •  e-mail: ted () xanadu net   •  world-wide fax 1/415/332-0136
 •  http://www.sfc.keio.ac.jp/~ted/    •  http://www.xanadu.net
 • Coordinates in USA      Tel. 415/ 331-4422
  Project Xanadu, 3020 Bridgeway #295, Sausalito CA 94965

*********

From: "John D. Mitchell" <john () non net>
Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2000 11:00:24 -0700 (PDT)
To: declan () well com
Subject: ICANN, NSI, and the Friends of a Competitive Internet

I don't know how closely you are following the whole situation with ICANN
controlling the Internet domain name system but, right now, they are in the
process of evaluating proposals for new top-level domains (TLDs) (akin to
.com, .org, and .net) such as .kids, .xxx, and .web and the organizations
which will run them.

There's a good bit of, IMNSHO, nefarious and often incestuous goings on
with the existing behemoths and ICANN.  NSI and Melbourne IT have created
front organizations to try to capture a large number of the new TLDs.  In
fact, given the information available to date, they are directly going
after over 1/3 of all of the new TLDs!  Of course, a lot of people would
also categorize that particular set of new TLDs as the most interesting,
arguably most useful, and most likely to be popular (and therefore
lucrative) of all of the proposed new TLDs.

To be more specific, here are the details about the relationships that I'm
particularly worried about...

Afilias is a consortium that Network Solutions has created along with a
number of the existing .com, .org, and .net registrars.  Afilias was
created in September of this year and submitted its entries very late in
the process and still haven't disclosed all of their proposal.  Similarly,
Melbourne IT has created JVTeam as their front (along with one of their
partners, NeuStar).

Afilias has a registry run by Tucows. Tucows is also the registry for .tel
(NumberTel), .kids (The .Kids Domain), and .dir (Novell). Afilias also
comprises a number of registrars, including register.com, who is also
running the registry for the .pro application. Afilias also has CORE as a
member, who has applied themselves for .nom.

CORE is also the listed registry of choice for .post, .museum,
and .health. They also run the registry for a .biz application by
iDomains. iDomains is owned by Hal Lubson, who also owns Domain
Bank. Domain Bank is a member of Afilias. Additionally, iDomains also has a
Vice President by the name of Ken Stubbs, who is also the chair of CORE,
the chair of the ICANN names council, and a board member of
Afilias. Another Afilias board member, Paul Kane, is also a member of the
ICANN names council.

Melbourne IT is also a member of CORE (part of Afilias). They, in their
joint venture, JVTeam, have submitted three separate applications for .per,
.biz and .web. JVTeam, however, is also the registry of record for the
.travel and .geo applications. Melbourne IT is, by themselves, also named
as the registry for the BlueHill application for .kids.

That means that, as of today, this incestuous group is responsible for
sixteen (16) applications which is some 36%, or MORE THAN ONE-THIRD of ALL
APPLICATIONS!

[Heck, and I think that's being pretty fair to them since that analysis
presumes that they have nothing at all to do with the 9 applications that
have not yet been posted.]

So, needless to say (but I will anyways :-), I think that any significant
extension of NSI's and Melbourne IT's existing dominance would be A Very
Bad Thing(tm).  Therefore, I co-founded a site, JoinFoci.org, to try to
help facillitate the efforts in trying to make ICANN live up to its own
stated goals of ensuring true competition in this critical Internet
infrastructure.

You can find out more details, find all of the important links, find out
how to help, send a letter explaining this stuff to friends, and even sign
a petition that we've drafted on the site,
<a href="http://JoinFOCI.org/";>http://JoinFOCI.org/ </a>.

Take care,
        John

--
John D. Mitchell
jGuru.com -- Today is a Great Day to Code(tm)!
NoWebPatents.org -- Stop Patent Stupidity!
JoinFOCI.org -- Help stop NSI from extending their DNS monopoly!

*********

Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2000 16:04:02 -0600
From: John Palmer <jp () ADNS NET>
To: ga () dnso org
Subject: [ga] An open letter to Louis Touton

Mr. Touton,

This is to inform you that AGN Domain Name Service, Inc is asserting legals 
rights to the top level domains .USA, .EARTH and .Z.

We have operated a registry for these top-level domains since late 1995. If 
you check the famous "Postel List", you can see that we were one of the 
first applicants for new top level domains in late 1995. At that time, we 
established our registry and have been in operation since that time taking 
registrations in .EARTH and .USA. In March of 1997, we added the .Z 
top-level domain.

ADNS disagrees with the direction that ICANN is taking the Domain Name 
System and we do not choose to participate in the ICANN process. Instead, 
we are
supporting alternative root server networks and will continue to do so.

Although none of our three top-level domains have been entered into the 
ICANN application process at this time, we would like to inform you that we are
asserting legal ownership of these top level domains. Any attempt to add 
them to the ICANN controlled root zone under the control and ownership of
any other party will be considered by ADNS to be an infringement of our 
legal rights and we will take appropriate action. For ICANN to assign these
top-level domains to another party in the ICANN root would dilute our 
service mark and damage our company financially. In addition to this, it 
would also
fragment the internet as there would be two different versions of the same 
top-level domain.

In spite of Ms.Dyson's claim, alternative root networks take great care not 
to allow fragmentation by allowing competing versions of top level domains 
into their root zones if they are already in existence in another root 
zone. We would expect ICANN to take the same care and consideration to 
avoid fragmentation. There is room for all of us on the internet. Please 
respect our rights to operate our business and respect the rights of 
alternative root networks.

If you have any questions, you can contact me by e-mail. You may consider 
this an "open letter" and can publish it if you wish.

John P. Palmer
President
AGN Domain Name Service (ADNS), Inc.
Chicago, IL

*********




-------------------------------------------------------------------------
POLITECH -- the moderated mailing list of politics and technology
You may redistribute this message freely if it remains intact.
To subscribe, visit http://www.politechbot.com/info/subscribe.html
This message is archived at http://www.politechbot.com/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------