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
|
