NCSG-DISCUSS Archives

NCSG-Discuss

NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Mime-Version:
1.0
Sender:
NCSG-NCUC <[log in to unmask]>
X-To:
Nuno Garcia <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Fri, 24 Jun 2011 18:45:48 +0200
Reply-To:
JFC Morfin <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:
From:
JFC Morfin <[log in to unmask]>
In-Reply-To:
Message-ID:
Content-Type:
text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (100 lines)
Nuno,

the ICANN bylaws forbid ICANN to be a registry, not to be a registrar 
(at that time that notion did not exist). Since  they are the 
secretary to the top zone registry (NTIA), they managed to become the 
top zone registrar and address the "famous marks" raket, sorry, 
market. Why to permit registrars and Verisign to make a few bucks 
each on IBM.com and in whole for ICANN to make less than 100 bucks a 
year on all the IBM.tld when they can sell .ibm at $ 185.000 ? All 
what they did is to eventually address the "famous name" issue.

Famous names are often unique. And can foot the ICANN cost. So, we 
have a three level domain name market now:

- around $ 300.000 costs included first level, with some to be 
discounted and some on auction;
- around $ 12.5 costs included second level.
- usually free third level domain names.

The target is to stabilize the second level registrar's business. 
They are now protected by the first level names. http://ibm sounds 
better than http://ibm.com but does not prevent famous mark holders 
to continue to pay for http://gTLD.xx. This only made first level to 
switch from political to commercial. Along the basic ICANN (and 
American) principle: "it belongs to everyone, so let me sell it".

The only problem is that the ICANN's employees and lawyers do not 
know the Internet technology nor the OSI model. Famous marks are 
ready to pay ICANN if it can make sure that every xxx://gTLD first 
level works fine and only delivers to the gTLD nameservers and to 
their xxx protocol host(s). If it cannot, they will sue ICANN. And in 
turn ICANN will sue the technology.

Once they have won against the technology, the next step will be 
google://ibm. Or MS://google. Or ibm://ibm !!! Sold under IETF (ISOC) 
franchise, like .org. So, why not to start documenting a "people's 
protocol" (pp://) to serve them all (the optimum protocol would be 
negociated at the first authentication exchange). Just to protect us 
from this network branding new attempt to network neutrality.

If by some extaordinary chance, TM holders understood their best 
interest (stable billions of gTLD at no cost), or if they lost their 
action (or in the countries able to free themselvers from ICANN 
fundamental misconception of the DNS), we mihgt develop the Internet 
another step ahead.

jfc


At 17:08 24/06/2011, Nuno Garcia wrote:
>Crossposting.
>
>Although I do not share all the views expressed in the email, the
>expression "this is a solution without a problem" does rings bells...
>
>Cheers,
>
>Nuno Garcia
>
>
>---------- Forwarded message ----------
>From: Lauren Weinstein <[log in to unmask]>
>Date: 24 June 2011 01:33
>Subject: [ NNSquad ] Financial Times: "Internet suffix scramble looms
>for companies"
>To: [log in to unmask]
>
>
>
>Financial Times: "Internet suffix scramble looms for companies"
>
>http://j.mp/jEu0A0  (Financial Times)
>
>    "Companies are also concerned the move will spur increased
>     "cybersquatting", where trademark names are snapped up by internet
>     opportunists. Few are convinced by claims that the new system will
>     create valuable ways for companies to brand themselves online.  "This
>     is a classic example of a solution without a problem," Ken Hittel,
>     vice-president of the corporate internet department at New York Life
>     Insurance Company, said. "This is essentially a protection racket run
>     by Icann on behalf of its true constituents, the registrars and
>     registries", who will profit from the expansion of the internet
>     addressing system he said."
>
>  - - -
>
>--Lauren--
>Lauren Weinstein ([log in to unmask]): http://www.vortex.com/lauren
>Co-Founder: People For Internet Responsibility: http://www.pfir.org
>Founder:
>  - Network Neutrality Squad: http://www.nnsquad.org
>  - Global Coalition for Transparent Internet Performance: 
> http://www.gctip.org
>  - PRIVACY Forum: http://www.vortex.com
>Member: ACM Committee on Computers and Public Policy
>Blog: http://lauren.vortex.com
>Twitter: https://twitter.com/laurenweinstein
>Google Buzz: http://j.mp/laurenbuzz
>Tel: +1 (818) 225-2800 / Skype: vortex.com

ATOM RSS1 RSS2