Re: [ICANN-EU] IPv6, was: re-chartering this list: draft.

[Marc Schneiders <marc@venster.nl>]

[It is quite lame to reply "in the middle", but I do not seem to have
received the message of Andy.]
On Thu, 14 Sep 2000, Griffini Giorgio wrote:
> Andy wrote:
> 
> > >The problems we face now with the DNS
> > >system are nearly 100% externally caused (mostly by a mix of bad
> > >court decisions and legal theories and bad administrative practice),
> > >and we can create new TLDs until we are blue in the face, these 
> > >problems won't go away.
> > 
> > Objection. I agree about the reasons for the current problems,
> > but not, that new TLDīs couldnīt solve any problems. I could
> > imagine that new TLDīs take place under there own rules,
> > policies and legal theories. So, next to the (not so new) idea
> > of a TLD ".TM" for the trademark-owners, i could imagine
> > ".GPL" for everything under gnu public-license. We could even
> > expand these to cultural and religious spaces, like ".ISLAM"
> > (btw, they have no copyright & patent-laws ;), ".catholic"
> > for everything under Catholic policy and so on.
> > 
This is a joke, right? If not, may God forbid it. Have you any idea how
many entities in the world claim to be a religion? I think I just invented
one myself, so I must have my own TLD as well.

Also this would easily provide censorship opportunities to countries,
which I am sure you do not want. The Chinese would decide to not resolve
.catholic and .islam (or any religious TLD). Islamic countries might limit
access to .islam etc.
Of course people can run their own nameservers, but not everyone can do
that and is blocking of port 53 not enough to stop them doing so (I am not
sure about this).

[...]
> > >Another example is Jeanette's ideas abou how standardization
> > >works. Lutz very early made the point that the authority of 
> > >organizations like ICANN derive from the technical quality 
> > >of their results. Bad standards are not accepted in the market.
> > >Again Jeanette disagreed, somehow, with some fluff remarks
> > >on the influence of techs, without that I really 
> > >understood her counterposition.
> > 
> > I thought you did agree, that the current TLD / namespace
> > handling courtdecisions vs. UDRP/WIPO stuff is bullshit,
> > but it is accepted in the market. So I have to disagree:
> > just because a standard is bad, it doesnīt mean it is not
> > accepted in the market.
> > 

It is not accepted in "the" market. It is accepted by the big companies
that shape the markets and that shape the UDRP to their needs. Attempts to
make people aware of its wrong doings take time. In the mean any domain
can be grabbed by someone more powerful (read: who can buy more lawyers)
for an initial fee of $1,500 through WIPO. In most cases the owners are
not able to fight it in a real court for lack of money to open their own
can of lawyers. $1,500 for a domain you want, is not much for those
companies. The $50,000 or more needed to fight the UDRP decision in a
court effectivily bar those ousted from their domain from justice. Some
concern seems called for here. If ICANN does not solve this unjustice, it
will loose credibility day by day, as the number of UDRP cases is
growing... Right now the anger is directed against WIPO. This will soon
change as people become aware that ICANN let that dog out and only ICANN
can call it back and, if it doesn't listen, shoot it.

--
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
% Marc Schneiders ------- Venster - http://www.venster.nl % 
%* marc@venster.nl - marc@bijt.net - marc@schneiders.org *%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%