Slashdot Mirror

To quote their about page:

The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) is the non-profit corporation that was formed to assume responsibility for the IP address space allocation, protocol parameter assignment, domain name system management, and root server system management functions previously performed under U.S. Government contract by IANA and other entities.

I'm all for people/countries agreeing (including the EU folks) but as I understand it without ICANN or maybe IANA playing along, this doesn't mean much.

Yes, I'm aware that the article says:

The domain name itself will be protected by the ICANN rules recommended by the World Organisation for Intellectual Property.

I don't mean to piss anyone off but as I understand it, the internet is still largely American due to it's roots in ARPA and that most "authorities" on the internet are American.

Citrix

To quote their about page:

The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) is the non-profit corporation that was formed to assume responsibility for the IP address space allocation, protocol parameter assignment, domain name system management, and root server system management functions previously performed under U.S. Government contract by IANA and other entities.

I'm all for people/countries agreeing (including the EU folks) but as I understand it without ICANN or maybe IANA playing along, this doesn't mean much.

Yes, I'm aware that the article says:

The domain name itself will be protected by the ICANN rules recommended by the World Organisation for Intellectual Property.

I don't mean to piss anyone off but as I understand it, the internet is still largely American due to it's roots in ARPA and that most "authorities" on the internet are American.

Citrix

To quote their about page:

The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) is the non-profit corporation that was formed to assume responsibility for the IP address space allocation, protocol parameter assignment, domain name system management, and root server system management functions previously performed under U.S. Government contract by IANA and other entities.

I'm all for people/countries agreeing (including the EU folks) but as I understand it without ICANN or maybe IANA playing along, this doesn't mean much.

Yes, I'm aware that the article says:

The domain name itself will be protected by the ICANN rules recommended by the World Organisation for Intellectual Property.

I don't mean to piss anyone off but as I understand it, the internet is still largely American due to it's roots in ARPA and that most "authorities" on the internet are American.

Citrix

The only thing I can think of is that AOL has not been able to make the registration process work, so it's turned to NSI for help. The AOL domain name registration page has always been closed to non-AOL members, so I don't know if it was actually offering this as a service prior to today's announcement.

You can find the complete list of accredited and operational, accredited and non-operational, and pre-accredited registrars here.

I'm just dumb...the link didn't survive the preview...sorry about that. Maybe I'd have better luck posting about hot grits....

If you think Microsoft/AOL/Time Warner are monopolies you aint seen nothing yet! ICANN is a hand puppet for big corporations and trademark lawyers to turn DNS into a vehicle for "e-commerce" -- go and post your comments on their site and let them know that we don't need a bunch of lawyers and idiots making technical choices about DNS and new Domain names - http://www.icann.org/dnso/new-gtlds -01apr00.htm

Well, now you've come to the fundamental problem with the intersection of trademark law and comain policy. In traditional trademark law, there would not necessarily be a conflict-- however, given a flat namespace that does not differentiate (very well) based on geography or purpose, the conflict occurs. ICANN's Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy (UDRP) governs the conflicting claims and is pretty clearly on the side of the trademark holder. Since a trademark exists for "Coke", the Coca-Cola company seems to have a pretty strong case.

Someone asked if the term coke is a trademark in Switzerland. If you can read German, go to The Swiss Federal Institute of Intellectual Property and see if there is a searchable database.

Well, now you've come to the fundamental problem with the intersection of trademark law and comain policy. In traditional trademark law, there would not necessarily be a conflict-- however, given a flat namespace that does not differentiate (very well) based on geography or purpose, the conflict occurs. ICANN's Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy (UDRP) governs the conflicting claims and is pretty clearly on the side of the trademark holder. Since a trademark exists for "Coke", the Coca-Cola company seems to have a pretty strong case.

Someone asked if the term coke is a trademark in Switzerland. If you can read German, go to The Swiss Federal Institute of Intellectual Property and see if there is a searchable database.

What arbitration logs? I wasn't aware of ICANN handling domain disputes in Switzerland.

You forgot the http://. Which means that your link was actually pointing to <A HREF="http://www.SLASHDOT.ORG/www.icann.org">ICANN </a> -- which doesn't exist.

• .
• 4a) Applicable Disputes. You are required to submit to a mandatory administrative proceeding in the event that a third party (a "complainant") asserts to the applicable Provider, in compliance with the Rules of Procedure, that
  (i) your domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights; and
  (ii) you have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
  (iii) your domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
  In the administrative proceeding, the complainant must prove that each of these three elements are present.
  
  4b. Evidence of Registration and Use in Bad Faith. For the purposes of Paragraph 4(a)(iii), the following circumstances, in particular but without limitation, if found by the Panel to be present, shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith:
  (i) circumstances indicating that you have registered or you have acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of your documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or
  (ii) you have registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that you have engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or
  (iii) you have registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or
  (iv) by using the domain name, you have intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to your web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of your web site or location or of a product or service on your web site or location.

There have been many domain name matters which have been resolved. ICANN has them all here, listed by domain name, or here, by proceeding number, or even here, by commencement date.

There have been many domain name matters which have been resolved. ICANN has them all here, listed by domain name, or here, by proceeding number, or even here, by commencement date.

There have been many domain name matters which have been resolved. ICANN has them all here, listed by domain name, or here, by proceeding number, or even here, by commencement date.

Have any of the articles mentioned whether Verisign will acquire both the registry and registrar functions of NSI, or just one? One of the ICANN-NSI agreements last November required NSI to separate the registry (database) and registrar (signing up new domains) functions at some point in the future. I can't find the details on the ICANN site now.

1) You've ALWAYS been able to participate in ICANN. Every time someone's posted anything related to domain policy, I've practically begged people to get involved, join working groups, and work to ensure things like the ICANN UDRP were fair to individuals. All you've ever had to do to get involved was to subscribe to a DNSO mailing list. (You can't join the ASO, but don't feel bad -- they're not letting ISPs join either.)

2) You will not legally be a "member" of anything. ICANN has gone to great lengths to ensure there is no such thing as a legal membership. In fact, they've spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on legal counsel to ensure that there's little if any accountability within ICANN at all.

3) You will not get to elect board members. You will get to elect a handful of people, who will then CHOOSE the 9 new board members, and only then with the consent of the existing board.

4) Did I mention that you've ALWAYS had the ability to participate in ICANN and have your voice heard?

5) If you join the At Large Membership without informing yourself first, you'll only be harming EVERYONE. Take some time and learn what's been going on before you jump in and implicitly support what ICANN's been up to:

Go read how WIPO is using the ICANN UDRP to enfore implicit beliefs that the Net is nothing but the web, only businesses should own domain names, and only trademark owners should have rights to those names: WIPO dispute decisions

Go read how the UDRP was created in the DNSO WG-A. Go read how corporations want to prohibit you from registering any domain name that contains a trademarked substring (e.g., whereitsatt.com contains ATT) in WG-B. Go read how members of WG-B are trying everything they can to stop the rollout of new top-level domains in WG-C. Go see how the DNSO general assembly deteriorated, destroyed itself and was censored...the GA is the precursor of the ICANN At-Large membership, and should serve as a warning to any considering joining: DNSO Archives

In short, go read up on the history of ICANN and domain name policy before you lend your name to it. Rest assured, Mike Roberts is going to take every opportunity to hold up your membership as implicit support for what ICANN's doing. And you should think long and hard about whether you do support what ICANN's been up to. It may be trendy and cool to bash NSI, but to support ICANN just because they're not NSI may be the poorest decision you've ever made.

Go see for yourself what ICANN is before you lend your name to it.

1) You've ALWAYS been able to participate in ICANN. Every time someone's posted anything related to domain policy, I've practically begged people to get involved, join working groups, and work to ensure things like the ICANN UDRP were fair to individuals. All you've ever had to do to get involved was to subscribe to a DNSO mailing list. (You can't join the ASO, but don't feel bad -- they're not letting ISPs join either.)

2) You will not legally be a "member" of anything. ICANN has gone to great lengths to ensure there is no such thing as a legal membership. In fact, they've spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on legal counsel to ensure that there's little if any accountability within ICANN at all.

3) You will not get to elect board members. You will get to elect a handful of people, who will then CHOOSE the 9 new board members, and only then with the consent of the existing board.

4) Did I mention that you've ALWAYS had the ability to participate in ICANN and have your voice heard?

5) If you join the At Large Membership without informing yourself first, you'll only be harming EVERYONE. Take some time and learn what's been going on before you jump in and implicitly support what ICANN's been up to:

Go read how WIPO is using the ICANN UDRP to enfore implicit beliefs that the Net is nothing but the web, only businesses should own domain names, and only trademark owners should have rights to those names: WIPO dispute decisions

Go read how the UDRP was created in the DNSO WG-A. Go read how corporations want to prohibit you from registering any domain name that contains a trademarked substring (e.g., whereitsatt.com contains ATT) in WG-B. Go read how members of WG-B are trying everything they can to stop the rollout of new top-level domains in WG-C. Go see how the DNSO general assembly deteriorated, destroyed itself and was censored...the GA is the precursor of the ICANN At-Large membership, and should serve as a warning to any considering joining: DNSO Archives

In short, go read up on the history of ICANN and domain name policy before you lend your name to it. Rest assured, Mike Roberts is going to take every opportunity to hold up your membership as implicit support for what ICANN's doing. And you should think long and hard about whether you do support what ICANN's been up to. It may be trendy and cool to bash NSI, but to support ICANN just because they're not NSI may be the poorest decision you've ever made.

Go see for yourself what ICANN is before you lend your name to it.

$1,000 US ICANN application fee

$5,000 US ICANN annual fee

$70,000 US in working capital

not to mention...

$10,000 US NSI registration fee

$100,000 US performance assurance bond

and even after all that trouble, NSI will take $9 US from every registration I were to put through! It's nice to have a say in who gets to go through, and to perhaps bring NSI back down to earth.

This has brought my conclusion to going through the Tucows OpenSRS system, which is a free registration and free perl based CGI's, through which I can register domains for a simple $10 US per year ($9 of which goes to NSI, $1 going to Tucows for providing us with this great service).

Some more links for those of you ready to become your own registrar:

http://www.iana.org/

http://www.icann.org/

http://www.ietf.org/

http://www.nsiregistry.com/

http://www.internic.net/

Good luck! I hope everyone helps contribute to the OpenSRS project, as it will certainly be the way of the future for small ISP's like myself who can't afford NSI's outrageous costs and bonds.

- EraseMe

There seams to be 9 at large members on the board who would be elected byt the atlarge membership.

No... no... no... They're trying to trademark the word book. See that way they get book.com, book.net, and book.org away from the real domain name owners for FREE. Thank you, ICANN. ;*)


Visit uMoo - http://www.uMoo.com/ everyone needs to talk about bull!

It's not looking too good for people with trailing dash domains, but I feel if ICANN follows through on requiring the mass revocation of those domains, they should fix the "races.com" domain registration while they're at it.

Quote from ICANN webpage regarding the trailing hyphans:
http://www.icann.org/nsi/trailing-hyp hens.htm

"... They also provide that those registering domain names must agree to cancellation of the registration in the event of a registry or registrar mistake, and in the case of every one of the trailing-hyphen names the registering party did in fact have such an agreement."

So why hasn't "races.com" been revoked yet and the registration corrected either back to the original owner or the the correct owner John McLanahan???

In the case of "races.com", there was certainly a registrar mistake and the various parties (NSI Registry, NSI Registrar, Register.com) agree this to be true so when will it be corrected???

Or am I misreading the sentence from ICANN's website that states:
"They [the agreements] also provide that those registering domain names [Registrars] must agree to cancellation of the registration in the event of a registry or registrar mistake, ..."

Note the important word REGISTRAR!!!! So while some like NSI have claimed John McLanahan is SOL, it appears that ICANN is either not aware of the "races.com" situation or doesn't follow it's own rules of correcting such mistakes.

For a backgrounder on how "races.com" was lost, see this link:
http://www.wired.com/news/prin t/0,1294,32974,00.html

I can only hope ICANN, NSI, and/or Register.com do the right thing and restore the "races.com" domain back to the proper owner; and restore people's confidence in the domain name system. Imagine if "business.com" had been lost during a domain transfer...that's exactly what happened with "races.com"!!

NSI appears to have simply repackaged the ICANN material and branded it as "domainmagistrate.com." Every other ICANN accredited registrar has the same policy. It is required by their accreditation agreements with ICANN. Give the NSI marketing department credit though for getting all the press on this one.

NSI appears to have simply repackaged the ICANN material and branded it as "domainmagistrate.com." Every other ICANN accredited registrar has the same policy. It is required by their accreditation agreements with ICANN. Give the NSI marketing department credit though for getting all the press on this one.

Whether this is a good idea remains to be seen. The arbitration system used is unusual (compare the American Arbitration Association), and the laws under which disputes are to be decided is unclear. Major disputes will probably still lead to litigation. We'll have to see how this works in practice. But don't blame NSI for this one. Esther Dyson, maybe.

Today, as it happens, marks the opening of the Disputes.org/eResolution.ca Consortium. We'll be providing the first wholly online domain name dispute resolution system, and we have a very distinguished panel of arbitrators. It's all explained in our press release or you can go straight to either the eResolution or Disputes.org homepages.

The Consortium is accredited by ICANN, which means you will be able to use our services for all gTLD-related disputes in the legacy root, including domains registered by NSI. I expect we will be listed on the NSI "Domain Magistrate" page soon (as I understand it, that page is really just a front end for the ICANN-mandated dispute process).

I'm a founding member of disputes.org, so I'm biased, but I think our international panel of arbitrators is pretty impressive and the online complaint forms are handsome and functional. What do you think?

P.S. For this purpose, ignore my automatic .sig below. My participation in disputes.org is not connected with my day job....

Today, as it happens, marks the opening of the Disputes.org/eResolution.ca Consortium. We'll be providing the first wholly online domain name dispute resolution system, and we have a very distinguished panel of arbitrators. It's all explained in our press release or you can go straight to either the eResolution or Disputes.org homepages.

The Consortium is accredited by ICANN, which means you will be able to use our services for all gTLD-related disputes in the legacy root, including domains registered by NSI. I expect we will be listed on the NSI "Domain Magistrate" page soon (as I understand it, that page is really just a front end for the ICANN-mandated dispute process).

I'm a founding member of disputes.org, so I'm biased, but I think our international panel of arbitrators is pretty impressive and the online complaint forms are handsome and functional. What do you think?

P.S. For this purpose, ignore my automatic .sig below. My participation in disputes.org is not connected with my day job....

• (i) your domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights;
• and

• (ii) you have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name;
• and

• (iii) your domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

• (i) your domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights;
• and

• (ii) you have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name;
• and

• (iii) your domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

• the domain name infringes on a trademark

• the owner has no rights to or legitimate interests in the domain

• the domain name is being used in bad faith

If there were similar procedures in place for .com/.net/.org, there would be time to correct mistakes like the one in this case before someone else got the name. ICANN and/or the registries should take action to implement such a policy.

For a list of accredited alternatives to the NSI , check this out

Here, Here!

For a list of alternative domain registars other the NSI, check this out.

As part of the NSI's agreement with the ICANN (http://www.icann.org/ns i/nsi-registry-agreement-04nov99.htm), registry information like this is being split up.

Instead of having everything lumped into one database, you have one centralized database (which this has turned into) containing only information about the domain itself and the responsible registrar that introduced it.

If you want details about the domain, you then need to query the appropriate registrar's WHOIS server to retrieve it (this is why querying whois.networksolutions.com gets you the information you're used to getting). This is the most efficient way of handling information like this. Each registrar is responsible for keeping its own database of contact information and the "main" centralized database is responsible only for the domain and the registrar that set it up.

Let's please THINK a bit about a topic and wonder if there might be a perfectly logical explanation for something instead of immediately insisting that someone is being evil and intends to destroy our lives or our Internet.

A little bit of research won't kill you.

I'm a lawyer and (worse?) a law professor, so I have to start with disclaimers: this isn't legal advice, consult a lawyer who is familiar with the facts of your situation, etc. etc. YMMV. Consult the other disclaimers at once, etc. etc..

I should also note that what follows is based on the law at the time the letter was written (i.e. I am not taking account of the cybersquatting bill, which AFAIK has not actually passed both houses yet although I gather it's almost a foregone conclusion).

Furthermore, trademark law varies some (but only some) from country to country. I know much more about US law than I do about other countries. What I do know about European trademark law, however, suggests that the position of a domain name registrant viz a viz a brick & mortar trademark holder is a little less favorable in, say, the Netherlands, than it would be in the US because the distinction between commercial/non-commercial uses is less strong, and because mere registration may qualify as "use" of a trademark or some other type of infringing activity. What follows is primarily geared to the US domain name registrant.

As a general rule, trademark law divides the universe of trademarks into two families: a fairly small set of "famous" marks (think "CocaCola (tm)" and everything else. In the US the "famous" marks (and, weirdly, maybe some non-famous marks) are protected by relatively new federal anti-dilution statute and in many but not all states by (older) state anti-dilution laws which do vary. All trademarks, whether famous or not, are also protected against "confusion" and "tarnishment" (and other stuff we'll ignore for now). Tarnishment prosecutions are rare, but the law protects against the association of a trademarked name with something really bad (porn or drugs), modulo first amendment concerns (but then beware libel law). Running a porn site, even a free one, might well be considered tarnishment if the site's name was easily confused with a trademarked name.

The critical points to understand, as a first approximation to the law only, are these:

• In the US, although not necessarily in other countries, mere registration of a domain name, without something more (infringing use and/or an offer to sell the domain name, especially one that is part of a pattern of such offers), is NOT a violation of trademark law. There might be some special cases sounding in unfair competition law (e.g. registering the domain name of a competitor), but we'll ignore that.
• If
  1. your use is purely non-commercial (you are not even selling T-shirts), and
  2. you have never offered to sell the domain name to anyone for anything, and
  3. you are not guilty of tarnishment
  then your legal position is very strong.
• If you are engaged in any sort of commercial activity using the domain name, it matters whether the trademark is famous or not.
  • If it is (and fame can be just regional instead of national) , you might want to talk to a lawyer as this part of the law is in some flux since the federal statute is fairly new and state laws vary.
  • If the mark is not famous, the most important issue is whether there is a likelihood of confusion between your site and the trademark. This is a question about how you are using the site, not a question about the name itself. On the other hand, the court will look at the totality of the circumstances, including how different your line of business is from that of the trademark holder. Just running a little disclaimer is not inevitably going to be enough to protect you, especially if there is substantial similarity between your line of business and theirs. Yup, probably lawyer time again.
• If you have offered to sell the domain name for $$$ the court is going to suspect you of being a cybersquatter. The more the $$$, the worse it looks. It also looks worse if you initiated the contact; it's less bad if they contacted you and they first broached the subject of $$$.

Note also that all new registrations and all re-registrations in .com, .org and .net will henceforth be subject to ICANN's new take-it-or-leave-it dispute policies at the option of a complainant with a trademark seeking to wrest a domain name from a non-trademark holder.

So, don't panic. Please keep in mind that the new cybersquatting bill may obsolete some of the above. I understand the bill was amended last week and I have not had a chance to look at the latest text, which is why I'm not discussing it.

Net libertarians also worried that the ruling legitimized the idea that the government needs to step in and regulate the Internet. History suggests they have good for concern. Judge Jackson's ruling was, in fact, by far the most significant and far-reaching intrusion into Net commerce by a federal authority, and represents a landmark judicial effort to begin writing Net law.

I'm afraid these un-named "net libertarians" (who are they?) have it about 100% backwards. First, the MS case is not primarily about e-commerce. It's about old-fashioned markets. How many copies of Windows are sold online? Second, there's little or nothing in the decision relevant to regulation of the Internet except in the sense that businesses located in the US that happen to do Internet-related work are of course subject to the same (antitrust, and other) laws as everyone else. This was already pretty clear -- just as making phone calls doesn't allow you to contract out of local law, so too with a modem. (Yes, you can do regulatory arbitrage but that takes more than one jurisdiction.)

What this case shows is that it is not really that difficult to apply traditional anti-trust principles to the software business. Which is at best a small part of the e-commerce business.

Attention "net libertarians": Want to worry about global Internet goverance? You will get more traction (although the jury is still out) by worrying about ICANN instead. Now that's a real potential (so far) for regulation of the Internet on a global basis.

The MS opinion, for all its vices or virtues, is not about "net law". It's not about the Internet. It's about old-fashined strong-armed marketing and anti-competitive behavior with (alleged) domestic, territorial, effects. And it's not the first time someone sold (gave away) well below cost to hurt a rival, either.

When ICANN was formed, its charter contemplated having a big chunk of the Board directly elected by individual "members" of the Corporation. The date for that election continues to recede, and the terms by which ordinary domain name registrants or other regular folks might get to choose representatives get more and more crabbed and limited.

The following exchange I had with Joe Sims, ICANN's Chief Counsel, regarding ICANN's proposed By-laws changes illuminates the issues. I should note that there is a fourth message from Sims that is not in the ICANN Bylaws comment archive. In that fourth message he says, among other things, the he is speaking in his personal capacity, not as an ICANN spokesperson. (As Sims authored most of the legal documents that shape ICANN, the distinction is a subtle one, but real.) When I get permission to host an HTML copy, I'll post a link to it on my WIPO/ICANN page.

• My original comment attacking the proposal
• Joe Sims's Response
• My reply to Sims.
• Sims's Latest. This link takes you to a Harvard Law School newsgroup. Look for a message from Joe Sims dated Mon Oct 25, 7:08 pm entitled Re: [names] from Michael Froomkin

Perhaps the most interesting issues to come out of this debate are, first, to what extent is it correct, as Sims argues, that allowing individuals a direct role in ICANN governance threatens to "destabilize" either ICANN or the Internet. Second, if one has strong individual representation in ICANN (or even if one doesn't) how to structure the body to avoid "capture" by a small faction. And, last but not least, how much individual representation, of what nature, does ICANN require to be legitimate?

Visit ICANNWatch.org !

When ICANN was formed, its charter contemplated having a big chunk of the Board directly elected by individual "members" of the Corporation. The date for that election continues to recede, and the terms by which ordinary domain name registrants or other regular folks might get to choose representatives get more and more crabbed and limited.

The following exchange I had with Joe Sims, ICANN's Chief Counsel, regarding ICANN's proposed By-laws changes illuminates the issues. I should note that there is a fourth message from Sims that is not in the ICANN Bylaws comment archive. In that fourth message he says, among other things, the he is speaking in his personal capacity, not as an ICANN spokesperson. (As Sims authored most of the legal documents that shape ICANN, the distinction is a subtle one, but real.) When I get permission to host an HTML copy, I'll post a link to it on my WIPO/ICANN page.

• My original comment attacking the proposal
• Joe Sims's Response
• My reply to Sims.
• Sims's Latest. This link takes you to a Harvard Law School newsgroup. Look for a message from Joe Sims dated Mon Oct 25, 7:08 pm entitled Re: [names] from Michael Froomkin

Perhaps the most interesting issues to come out of this debate are, first, to what extent is it correct, as Sims argues, that allowing individuals a direct role in ICANN governance threatens to "destabilize" either ICANN or the Internet. Second, if one has strong individual representation in ICANN (or even if one doesn't) how to structure the body to avoid "capture" by a small faction. And, last but not least, how much individual representation, of what nature, does ICANN require to be legitimate?

Visit ICANNWatch.org !

When ICANN was formed, its charter contemplated having a big chunk of the Board directly elected by individual "members" of the Corporation. The date for that election continues to recede, and the terms by which ordinary domain name registrants or other regular folks might get to choose representatives get more and more crabbed and limited.

The following exchange I had with Joe Sims, ICANN's Chief Counsel, regarding ICANN's proposed By-laws changes illuminates the issues. I should note that there is a fourth message from Sims that is not in the ICANN Bylaws comment archive. In that fourth message he says, among other things, the he is speaking in his personal capacity, not as an ICANN spokesperson. (As Sims authored most of the legal documents that shape ICANN, the distinction is a subtle one, but real.) When I get permission to host an HTML copy, I'll post a link to it on my WIPO/ICANN page.

• My original comment attacking the proposal
• Joe Sims's Response
• My reply to Sims.
• Sims's Latest. This link takes you to a Harvard Law School newsgroup. Look for a message from Joe Sims dated Mon Oct 25, 7:08 pm entitled Re: [names] from Michael Froomkin

Perhaps the most interesting issues to come out of this debate are, first, to what extent is it correct, as Sims argues, that allowing individuals a direct role in ICANN governance threatens to "destabilize" either ICANN or the Internet. Second, if one has strong individual representation in ICANN (or even if one doesn't) how to structure the body to avoid "capture" by a small faction. And, last but not least, how much individual representation, of what nature, does ICANN require to be legitimate?

Visit ICANNWatch.org !

When ICANN was formed, its charter contemplated having a big chunk of the Board directly elected by individual "members" of the Corporation. The date for that election continues to recede, and the terms by which ordinary domain name registrants or other regular folks might get to choose representatives get more and more crabbed and limited.

The following exchange I had with Joe Sims, ICANN's Chief Counsel, regarding ICANN's proposed By-laws changes illuminates the issues. I should note that there is a fourth message from Sims that is not in the ICANN Bylaws comment archive. In that fourth message he says, among other things, the he is speaking in his personal capacity, not as an ICANN spokesperson. (As Sims authored most of the legal documents that shape ICANN, the distinction is a subtle one, but real.) When I get permission to host an HTML copy, I'll post a link to it on my WIPO/ICANN page.

• My original comment attacking the proposal
• Joe Sims's Response
• My reply to Sims.
• Sims's Latest. This link takes you to a Harvard Law School newsgroup. Look for a message from Joe Sims dated Mon Oct 25, 7:08 pm entitled Re: [names] from Michael Froomkin

Perhaps the most interesting issues to come out of this debate are, first, to what extent is it correct, as Sims argues, that allowing individuals a direct role in ICANN governance threatens to "destabilize" either ICANN or the Internet. Second, if one has strong individual representation in ICANN (or even if one doesn't) how to structure the body to avoid "capture" by a small faction. And, last but not least, how much individual representation, of what nature, does ICANN require to be legitimate?

Visit ICANNWatch.org !

When ICANN was formed, its charter contemplated having a big chunk of the Board directly elected by individual "members" of the Corporation. The date for that election continues to recede, and the terms by which ordinary domain name registrants or other regular folks might get to choose representatives get more and more crabbed and limited.

The following exchange I had with Joe Sims, ICANN's Chief Counsel, regarding ICANN's proposed By-laws changes illuminates the issues. I should note that there is a fourth message from Sims that is not in the ICANN Bylaws comment archive. In that fourth message he says, among other things, the he is speaking in his personal capacity, not as an ICANN spokesperson. (As Sims authored most of the legal documents that shape ICANN, the distinction is a subtle one, but real.) When I get permission to host an HTML copy, I'll post a link to it on my WIPO/ICANN page.

• My original comment attacking the proposal
• Joe Sims's Response
• My reply to Sims.
• Sims's Latest. This link takes you to a Harvard Law School newsgroup. Look for a message from Joe Sims dated Mon Oct 25, 7:08 pm entitled Re: [names] from Michael Froomkin

Perhaps the most interesting issues to come out of this debate are, first, to what extent is it correct, as Sims argues, that allowing individuals a direct role in ICANN governance threatens to "destabilize" either ICANN or the Internet. Second, if one has strong individual representation in ICANN (or even if one doesn't) how to structure the body to avoid "capture" by a small faction. And, last but not least, how much individual representation, of what nature, does ICANN require to be legitimate?

Visit ICANNWatch.org !

Guys,

There are techies on the ICANN board. The ASO is a blatantly techie group I was there. I helped select the three European members of the ASO.

This has been a more open process than people seem to believe. There is seems to be an attitude of "I didn't see a Slashdot article on this, therefore I wasn't represented". A slashdot poll, or any kind of net election, is not a good way to have everyone's voice heard. Net polls are fun, but I have never seen any "democratic" concept more abused than that, including student politics.

This has been an open process, and anyone who has web or email access has had a voice. RIPE, ARIN and APNIC - the three regional registries representing in equal parts Europe, America and Asia-Pacific - made a proposal on how to form the ASO. Another joint proposal came from CIX, EuroISPA and eCOM-LAC. Comments were invited, and received, and recognised, on both proposals. (I made mine).

In the end, the proposal from the registries was accepted as the most open and fair way forward - with an acknowledgement that no solution is perfect and so the ASO will need to answer to an ad-hoc committee in the initial stages to ensure that true representation is occurring.

The process of selecting ASO members was itself open. RIPE is a completely open group - you do not need to be a customer of the RIPE NCC to attend its meetings or take part in its working groups - and ARIN and APNIC are rapidly heading in that direction. Bear in mind that the Canadian member of the board was chosen has the representative for ARIN, the RR for America writ large, North and South.

To anyone who thinks that this method of decision doesn't work, or doesn't properly represent anyone, remember that this is the same method by which any progress has been made in the last ten years. A group of techies meet (IETF, RIPE, NANOG, whatever) representing their various companies, ISPs and customers, thrash out the issues of the day - IPv6 allocation, too many updates in the RIPE database, how to measure network performance between Amsterdam and New York - and walk away knowing what direction to proceed in.

The process is not the flawed democratic principle whereby an uninformed electorate is given a bad bunch of choices (picked by a mysterious process which the population at large has no control over) and asked to pick the one which the least people hate most. It is a process where anyone with a good idea can make a proposal, and anyone with a problem with that proposal can have their voice heard, and have it fixed. Or looking at the another way, "If you don't like this option, fine, but I'll want to hear some better ones please."

It's an open-source election, people. Please don't abandon it in favour of a trumped up slashdot poll.

Dave

--

Guys,

There are techies on the ICANN board. The ASO is a blatantly techie group I was there. I helped select the three European members of the ASO.

This has been a more open process than people seem to believe. There is seems to be an attitude of "I didn't see a Slashdot article on this, therefore I wasn't represented". A slashdot poll, or any kind of net election, is not a good way to have everyone's voice heard. Net polls are fun, but I have never seen any "democratic" concept more abused than that, including student politics.

This has been an open process, and anyone who has web or email access has had a voice. RIPE, ARIN and APNIC - the three regional registries representing in equal parts Europe, America and Asia-Pacific - made a proposal on how to form the ASO. Another joint proposal came from CIX, EuroISPA and eCOM-LAC. Comments were invited, and received, and recognised, on both proposals. (I made mine).

In the end, the proposal from the registries was accepted as the most open and fair way forward - with an acknowledgement that no solution is perfect and so the ASO will need to answer to an ad-hoc committee in the initial stages to ensure that true representation is occurring.

The process of selecting ASO members was itself open. RIPE is a completely open group - you do not need to be a customer of the RIPE NCC to attend its meetings or take part in its working groups - and ARIN and APNIC are rapidly heading in that direction. Bear in mind that the Canadian member of the board was chosen has the representative for ARIN, the RR for America writ large, North and South.

To anyone who thinks that this method of decision doesn't work, or doesn't properly represent anyone, remember that this is the same method by which any progress has been made in the last ten years. A group of techies meet (IETF, RIPE, NANOG, whatever) representing their various companies, ISPs and customers, thrash out the issues of the day - IPv6 allocation, too many updates in the RIPE database, how to measure network performance between Amsterdam and New York - and walk away knowing what direction to proceed in.

The process is not the flawed democratic principle whereby an uninformed electorate is given a bad bunch of choices (picked by a mysterious process which the population at large has no control over) and asked to pick the one which the least people hate most. It is a process where anyone with a good idea can make a proposal, and anyone with a problem with that proposal can have their voice heard, and have it fixed. Or looking at the another way, "If you don't like this option, fine, but I'll want to hear some better ones please."

It's an open-source election, people. Please don't abandon it in favour of a trumped up slashdot poll.

Dave

--

See Appendix B of the tentative agreement.

That language, in turn, has been very much shaped by the ICANN discussions - see the ICANN website for the details.

The ICANN agreement page is supposed to have a public comment form soon. Think they can handle the /. effect?

It basically states that if NSI and ICANN feel they aren't makeing enough money, they can raise the prices accordingly.... Does anyone else see a problem with this?

Nope, no problem. NSI is a commercial entity. Fair enough. ICANN is a nonprofit, advised in these matters by its Domain Name Supporting Organisation, made up of representatives of these groups.

The intention here is that ICANN plays the role of arbitrator. Much effort has gone into ensuring that ICANN is properly transparent and properly representative of the community on these matters.

Personally, I preferred it when Jon Postel ran the entire internet, but after countless green papers, white papers, and input from many, many interested parties, ICANN is set up to do a decent job of achieving consensus.

Dave

[My opinions, not necessarily those of my employer]

--

You have competition - that's wonderful.. but without rules it's gonna get vicious in a hurry. Is there an arbitration committee with the power to enforce it's rulings? No.

Depends on how you look at it. Which two parties are you worried about here? If it's NSI and some other registry - indeed, any two registries, then the group with the power to enforce its rulings is undoubtedly the group that allocated registry status in the first place - IANA or, these days, its successor.

If NSI (or anyone else) is arguing with the very people who ostensibly hold that authority, and is thus challenging that authority, well that's ugly, and doesn't have a simple answer.

Second problem - you're maintaining multiple independent databases. Anybody who's used SQL for more than 10 minutes knows that this is a HUGE data integrity issue. Widget Enterprises decides to register widget.com, so they call up NSI and get the order put in. I can't see how the current system can support multiple root servers - they'll be constantly out of sync with the others!

Nay, nay and thrice nay. There remains one central database and, just like all the other zones in the world, one primary root server. Type dig . soa on a UNIX machine and you'll see from the SOA that the primary name server is A.ROOT-SERVERS.NET, run by - surprise - NSI.

The multiple root servers referred to in the document are, by my understanding, the ordinary secondary name servers for the root domain. DNS is neat like that, it allows you to spread the load for efficient bandwidth use, or CPU use, or reliability, or all three.

Same for the .COM, .NET and .ORG servers. Every domain registered in these TLDs must go through the operators of A.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. This is what the $9 charge is for. It is rather unfortunate that the operators of the primary server are themselves registering .COM domains, but there weren't no easy way out of that one, 'cos NSI was never gonna give up all its hard work (and revenue stream) that easily.

Dave

[My opinions, not necessarily those of my employer]

--

ICANN's Registrar Accreditation Agreement effectively requires prepayment (see Section III.I.4). The only .com/.net/.org registrar not (yet) bound by that agreement is Network Solutions.

The first issue (unsolicited free emailaccounts accessible to all) isn't so much a security thing (after all, anyone can create an email pretending to be me from a free email service anyway) as it is a matter of trust.

NSI continues to show that it's not worthy of that trust. The data that was entrusted to them for technical and administrative purposes, is now a source of income for NSI, who are also denying others the right to do the same.

The terms of being registered with NSI, which at the time I registered my domains still had the monopoly, have been changing constantly.

If anyone can recommend a registry that will allow me to keep control of my data, please step forward. I want that control back.

NSI has shown that it's not worthy of our trust. NSI can't be and shouldn't be trusted. Not by the US Department of Commerce, not by ICANN, and not by Internet users in general.
--