Re: [ICANN-EU] Re: Don't waste your endorsement

[Jefsey Morfin <jefsey@wanadoo.fr>]

At 10:01 08/09/00, you wrote:
>As you may noticed on the IPv6 debate, I'm far from perfect but able to learn.
>A short search on icann publications did not come up with results regarding
>this tax (mailing lists searched, too). So please drop me an URL.

Lutz,
from what I gathered:


1. Economics

The ICANN public service economy is:

- advised public domain name rate .com/.net/.org : $ 35/annum

- ccTLD may establish the rates and terms they want
   (you say you collected them: I would be happy maintaining in line
   a description table of what they propose: would you have that?)

- NSI registries charge to registrars/ccTLD under contract : $ 6/annum

- ICANN bills $.33 per DN. ccTLD object to foot the bill and donate what 
they want
   They want a signed contract to *delegate* ICANN some management 
responsibilities

- new TLDs: to propose un new TLD you have to pay a "reading fee" of $50.000
   -   to explain ICANN how you are going to make them earn money
   -   to show them the contract you propose protects them

1.1. Competition

- Competition is offering additional TLDs on top of the public TLDs and
   could possibly propose alternative clones TLDs (filtered).

   - either as an alternative
   - either as a complement
   - or in producing a private root to the user system benefit, with a
     decreased need for the master system.

- competition is controlled through Windows and Mac-OS complexity at
   changing the default exclusive root server of ICANN. This is favored by a
   technically correct but confusing RFC of the IAB. This makes the ICANN
   subject to anti-trust regulation (cf. James Love from Ralph Nader team,
   candidate to the BoD through the DNSO).

1.2. Product legalities

- the product sold to the public is the domain name. It has no legal
   definition but one (circular) in the US anti-cybersquatting act.

- this product has conflicts with Trade Marks and to a much lower
   extent with intellectual property.

- due to its monopolistic status, a solution devised by a WG of its
   quite dormant specialized organization (DNSO) has been adopted
   by the WIPO which favors the TradeMark owners quite active in
   the DNSO while DN owners are not being really represented.
   This solution (UDRP) has positive points but is biased because :

   - it defines all the words it will use, except "domain name" ie
     the concept it is about, allowing all the possible wanderings

   - it enforces a posteriori concepts which were not enforced at
     registration time

   - it does not take into account any intellectual right.

   - most of the accepted reasons for a case are no part of the
     TradeMark area and there is room for a large number of
     UDRP among TradeMarks owners themselves as the fields
     of application do not match (TM come per country and
     classes) DNs are worldwide and come per TLDs

- the most obvious solution is to devise an international right
   of the domain names, taking into account the specifics of
   the electronic addressing: technicalities, semantic, private
   rights, etc...


2. Strategy

The ICANN strategy is obviously to circumvent NSI with alternatives
(ccTLD, new gTLDs, specialized TLDs of magnitude) of a certain level
(millions of DNs). These TLDs will be included in the master-root
maintained by ICANN. Most probably the a-root (the active copy of
the master-root) will be removed from NSI. The ICANN has agreed
with the CoD that their agreement will be pursued for one year more
to help fixing the main servers. Since this system works pretty well,
ICANN is using technical arguments to stay under the CoD umbrella
until it disengages the a-root from NSI. (the agreement ICANN/CoD is
clear about the wanted decrease of NSI importance).

In doing so ICANN's problem is not to kill its revenues and Internet
stability in destabilizing the TLD system.


3. Strategy Legalities

However this strategy falls under legal issues:

-  this may be argued to be against the public interest
-  this may be argued to fall under anti-trust law
-  UDRPs may be filed against new gTLDs as they de facto replicate ".com"
    as confusing, etc... all the arguments retained to remove DNs from owners.
-  NSI's market share is faught without objective reason : the call for
    innovation is obviously pure alibi (I propose two innovations modifying 
the
    domain name concepts).

There is also an increasing interest for an international legal consensus.
This could be done around three rights to be defined in the Human Rights
allowing every country and UN to develop a consistent legal body
(this is in tune with the G8 last meeting final declaration, so it could
move quickly if a clear doctrine could emerge):

-  identity right : name and address, formation, protection
    privacy, e-mail security, identification, etc...
-  freedom of sending and broadcasting : freedom of speech,
    freedom of contacting everyone, etc..
-  freedom of receiving and access: no spamm (the largest spamm is
    banners), right of filtering, choice of alternative sources in URL, access
    to the global network (including private TLDs).

It is to be noted that ICANN fails a certain number of that rights.


4. WWW (World Web War)

4.1 NSI front

Recently NSI introduced the "international domain names" (Chinese,
etc..) being just domain names in a format translatable in Chinese
characters, etc.. De facto NSI introduced in the public mind scores
of new TLDs. It also produced a private extension of its exclusive
registration protocol to manage the registrations. It was also a
test of the ICANN position. ICANN up to now only responded through
a mild press release calling for the respect of the standard.

We probably head toward an NSI vs ICANN action.

4.2 @large campaign

What ICANN people fear is that some Directors recalls that ICANN
is not a multi-national corporation and should consider the service of
the public first. So its role is NOT no create its own competition to NSI
but to welcome every existing competition. This means including
alt.root in the master root. This would certainly not give it as much
immediate weight than including ms-root, aol-root, etc... However
it would protect it against large operators system necessarily to
come. It would protect them too against NSI to include the alt.root
or other international roots in the a-root. I am not sure anyone
looked into the ICANN/NSI agreement to see if NSI can do it.
Obviously any other large operator could make that mover, creating
a real problem.

They know Karl Auerbach looked into this. They only fear that Andy
join forces with him. They play on the terms "chaos" and "hackers".
Mrs. Dyson who is a venture capitalist involved in Eastern startup
knows perfectly their meaning according Andy's approach.


5. Governance and US other Governments positions

"Mundialist" movements are quite appealed by the Internet "noos"
structure (a brain for the world) and hope that in making the ICANN
a management success, its model will help as an example for new
worldwide structures, and could be this way a first step towards a
worldwide government.

These people push for increased responsibilities being granted
to the ICANN. However:

-  the ICANN Charter is not for that
-  the people elected at the BoD are not capable to take such a
    responsibility
-  the ICANN has an existing Government Advisory Group.
    All the States are represented by ambassadors or high level
    civil servants.

The US government has broadly invested in the Internet
development, but the network belongs to everyone, many
countries, people and businesses having shared into it. The
best interest of the US Government is that the Internet works
(it should fit its purpose: electronic relations, not politics) and
can be used by the US industry to develop worldwide. This
policy is conducted by the CoD in a rather usual way.

The US Government also wants to disengage not to be
taxed with an "imperialistic" image, however not to the single
advantage of a single corporation (NSI). Other governments
(Europe) wants to play a role too, but are still learning.


6. Wolrd Big Problem

The moist important issue seems to be a fully overlooked one.
This is the IP addressing plan. The IP allocation is not really
planned. Urgent action is necessary because of the shortage of
IPv4 addresses. A recent press release of the ASO lead to
understand that IP adresses are now including the CNAMES
in term of resource allocation. It seems that the consequences
of that move have not yet been studied at legal level at least.

The IP adressing plan is involved in:
- technology (IPv6, may sometime IPv8)
- routing
- privacy (tracability of the system and persons)
- protection
- convergence with other system (telephone, radio...)
- electronic fund transfer
- many governmental issues


7. Other issues

There are many other issues. I though that notes might help.
Coments and adjustements welcome.

Jefsey