I see that under ORSC sponsorship, this IFWP list has come back to
life;-)...
My thanks and applause to Richard Sexton who "Just Did It!:
Perhaps ICANN should simply designate this list to be the "Official
ICANN List Of Record"... I belive that Richard and ORSC would be
pleased to see this happen, and end the great problem of mass cross
posting, and "hiding the meessage".
Now on to Esther's search for an analogy:
>From Esther's message Thu, 4 Feb 1999 07:57:16 -0500:
}
}Trying an analogy:
}
}The character string is land; the name is akin to real estate improvements.
}You should be able to own the improvements to the land you have made - the
}value you have created - but what about the underlying land? How do
}you/Should you - keep them separate? Is there a public right of way?
}
}Where does the metaphor break down? How does it work? (And note that there
}are lots of arguments about land, too!)
}
}Esther
}
I have thought about this for a very cery long time, since I first
became involved with ANSI X.400 and X.500 name registration issues in
1998, and of course ever since until the DNS MESS erupted.
Interestingly, all that work for ANSI never paid off for anyone,
except in negative experience;-)... ANSI tried to use the "Cemetary
Real Estate" analogue, where in registrations were sold for a $2,000
one time charge, and the fee was supposed to provide an endownment
that would earn enough income to cover the cost of perpetual care of
the records (i.e., Mow The Grass Forever!).
A business model for DNS is what we are missing and is exactly what
Esther is looking for, but I think there is a much better analogy than
that of "real estate" as she has expresed it.
My favorite model is "Advertising".
Where in the Root Zone is an advertising space (Bill Board) where DNS
TLD registrants contract for their names to be advertised to the
Internet public along with the data included in the DNS records
associated with the TLD name in the ROOT ZONE.
So, if there is any real estate, it is the space occupied by each
advertised TLD name and its associated data records. The TLD is an
occupant, not a piece of real estate.
And in each TLD in the ROOT, the model repeats, as it does all the way
down the tree.
Now, we seem to be asking "Who owns the name" that is registered by
the registrant and occupies the ZONE file "real estate", or maybe
better "Who owns the Intellectual Property Rights that attach to the
registrant's regisered DNS Name?" WE already know who owns the ROOT
ZONE realestate accupied by the TLD data records.
In my view, the intellectual property rights in a DNS name belong to
the registrant, unless a court of jurisdiction decides that it belongs
to some other party, or unless the "owner" contracts to transfer it to
some other party as is normal with intellectual property ownership.
Now, in my view, this resolves lots of interesting questions. And, it
provides a very rational basis for the ICANN business model.
Just for fun and to see where it leads, lets consider for a moment a
different model, where the ROOT owns the names that are in its ZONE
file and only "rents" the names to registrants? Why we would call
these renters "registrants" is a curiousity.
Now, in this hypothetical model, what are the mecahanics of the
transaction when a registrant shows up with a new name that no one has
ever seen, especially not the ROOT ZONE FILE "owner"! How does the
resgistrants interest in this new name (that no one has ever seen)
suddenly become the property of a different party that has never
conceived of the new name, so that this new owner can then rent it to
the registrant that invented it?
This is even hard to write about because it is such a strange idea.
Yet, it underlays much of the discussion that has occurred on the net.
And this little excursion goes to the heart of the great question of:
"What on earth is the ICANN Business Model?
What I think it will be is that ICANN expects to (but does not yet)
own a ROOT ZONE FILE which I will label the ICANN "branded" ROOT ZONE,
over which it has password authority and thus control of those
registered TLD names that are assigned name spaces in the ICANN ROOT
ZONE. This ICANN (branded) ROOT FILE to be is currently the US Govt
controlled ROOT ZONE that is now admistered by NSI under the DOC MoU.
I expect that the USGovrt assets that are under consideration for
transfer to ICANN include "ownership" of this ROOT ZONE, over which
the great DNS control MESs ahs arisen.
I see no problems with this model at all, and as long as ICANN can
continue to convince the Internet users (including ISPs) to look to
its ICANN (TM) ROOT service for TLD name resolution, and to the extent
that they provide good enough service to the users of the service They
can easily dominate the market for ROOT ZONE SERVICE as long as they
can maintain their brand in the open Internet market.
But, note carefully that this relationship is entirely voluntary on
the part of all those users out there in the Internet, because every
workstation that is added to the edges of the net has to be told where
to look for ROOT ZONE SERVICE, and the passwords to all those ROOT
ZONE pointer files belong to their edge based owner/users, and the
"real estate" in those files belongs to the owner/users, so those
owner/uers all have the same kind of control over their ROOT SERVICE
pointer file that ICANN has over its ROOT ZONE file. In short, they
can change them at will, and they have not contractual relationship
with ICANN for the service;-)...
So, all the real estate in this proposed ICANN model looks an awful
lot like any other two or three dimensional real estate. It lives in
Cartesian geometric space, and it has a value and it is capable of
occupation and it has some kind of cost of acqusition and of
maintenance.
But, who owns the content of the file, in the sense of ownership of
the character (or number) strings that serve as record identifiers for
pointers to other things?
I say that those names belong, in the form of Intellectual Property
Rights to the "registrant" or to the owner of that to which the name
points.
So, the "onwer" of (the intellectual property content of) a TLD name
in the ROOT, as I analyze it, belongs to the TLD Registry Service to
which the TLD name points.
Now, let me speculate as to why Esther is asking this question.
My bet is that ICANN is beginning to realize that they might not yet
have a viable business model concept that can be used to generate
income in connection with their apparent mission to control the use of
names and addresses in the Internet. or whatever it is that they see
as their mission in life.
Yes, I expect that this kind of logic also applies to IP Addresses in
the Internet, though IP numbers are not so elusive as to be unknown by
anyone until someone writes them down and asks to register them.
So, back to the Great ICANN Business Model Question!
I have not seen hide nor hair of any ICANN business model, other than
that vague suggestion from Jon Postel's original new-IANA proposal
that there should be SO's and that these SO's should fund the new-IANA
corporation (by some unspecified means). Well, such vague models are
fine up to a point, but sooner or later someone is going to send an
invoice to the new-IANA and expect it to be paid, and then some rubber
will have to meet some road. I think that time has come for ICANN.
So, to be helpful, I very seriously propose that ICANN adopt my
"Advertising" business model, and plan around building up the ICANN
(branded) ROOT service to be what ORSC has always advocated -- To wit:
A ROOT ZONE that is OPEN, COMPREHENSIVE, COHERENT, STABLE, SECURE,
ROBUST, FAIR, and VIABLE (as a business). These are the fundamental
common values that we all hold for the DNS and its service to the net.
(If I have omitted some, please help me complete the list!)
OPEN: It is open to a wide variety of TLD names each of which
is free to choose its business model to fit its desgin
goals, be it free SLDs for the poor or super expensive
for the very rich, or NSI (with competition) or some
kind of registrar's shared TLD registry system, or a
French Government Monopoly, or .TV. Or perhaps a
taxonomy of zoological species in hierarchical sorted
order. Who knows what limits there are to the
creation of social or economic value with special
purpose TLDs. What is wrong with charging Bill Gates
$1,000,000 per year for an SLD in .billionares? Who
would be harmed by such an apochraphal (silly) thing?
COMPREHENSIVE: It contains all the known TLDs that want to be known!
We know there are and will be TLDs whose users do not
wish them to be known to the public, and to them we
promise not to add them to the ICANN (branded) ROOT,
but we expect all TLDs that do want to be advertised
to the public to be included under a fair set of
objective policies that allows for diversity and
freedom of choice as long as the given TLD does not
diminish the other common values listed here. ICANN
Policy should be designed to first protect our values
as listed.
COHERENT: No Conflicts for any TLD at its own level anywhere in
the ROOT, or its level below the ROOT. This one is
simple and pretty much self enforcing.
STABLE: Not subject to instabilities of operation, policy,
politics, or economics. Actually it should even be
survivable in the face of attack, but maybe this is
"security". Some objective requirements are needed
here.
SECURE: Must withsstand regular red team attacks to assure
that it cannot be compromised. Specific ojective
requirements are needed here also.
ROBUST: Has adequate computer and bandwidth capacities to
handle maximum probable loads. Needs some objective
requirements.
FAIR: The entire DNS should be operated on the basis of
fairness to both the operators of the DNS and to the
community that the DNS collectively serves. This is
the origin of the ORSC notions of Fair Hearing Panels
to assure to all concerned that they are always
entitled to a Fair Hearing in connection with their
operation and use of the DNS.
VIABLE: The entire DNS system requires a viable business
model to fund the required infrastructure and
administration of the cooperative coordintion that
will make the DNS system into all those things listed
above.
So, this is my proposal for the DNSO part of the ICANN Business Model.
I expect that a similar set of ideas will apply to the ASO segment. I
am not at all sure what makes sense for the PSO segment, as I would
hate to see anything upset the structure that makes the IETF so
successful at producing useful market winning protocols.
I hope all this is helpful;-)... Enjoy;-)...\Stef
}
}
}At 12:11 AM 04/02/99 -0500, Craig Simon wrote:
}>Kerry Miller wrote:
}>> Its only the trademark interests which have proclaimed DN strings to be
}intellectual property, over and above its original use as a convenience to
}the commonality of net-users.
}>
}>I think I've heard Ellen Rony make a persuasive case that DNs are
}>intellectual property. If I've got her right, maybe she can help me
}>here.
}>
}>I would argue that DNs are intellectual property because as a DN holder
}>I receive a kind of title to that string of characters when used in
}>relation to DNS services. I choose that particular string of
}>characters... a functional resource... and that string consequently
}>becomes a property of my presence on the system... a property that is
}>uniquely my own within the legacy root.
}>
}>Kerry, doesn't the use of "sympatico" by your ISP (which calls itself
}>"Canada's most popular Internet online service provider..") reflect an
}>attempt to associate that entity with certain intellectual and emotional
}>characteristics? Isn't that name a resource of the company?
}>
}>>Giving them *as a class* any special representation in the DNS is to
}foretell the day we get to pay for the privilege of driving on the right
}side of the road (or the left, as the case may presently be - obviously
}that'll be a scase for WIPO!)
}>
}>That statement motivated me to check out what's at
}>http://www.hyperbole.com/ :-}
}>
}>> Seriously, by any concept of 'intellectual property,' the cybersquatters
}>> are in *exactly* the same business as the TM holders: trying to
}>> capitalize on the alphabet. If the net cant handle that, it would be
}>> better if ICANN proclaims forthwith that all domain names will be
}>> characterized in Cyrillic.
}>
}>
}>Spasibo, no ya ne soglasen.
}>
}>(I've forgotten a lot of my Russian. I mean to say, "Thanks but I don't
}>agree.") Kent is correct here. The TM holders are capitalizing on much
}>more than the alphabet, while many cybersquatters are capitalizing on
}>the work of TM holders.
}>
}>Remember, I don't want to rule out anyone's right to own
}>whateversucks.*, and I don't think there's much point in pre-empting
}>variations on *whatever* either. I'm just saying that trademark holders
}>have a legitimate beef. They're particularly vulnerable to exploitation
}>in this medium.
}>
}>I just heard an interesting story tonight about an incident in Paraguay
}>in the early 90s where a bunch of local companies registered famous
}>foreign brand names, and then charged the US, Japanese, and European
}>companies big bucks for the names when they showed up to do business.
}>Completely legal, obviously but sleazy. Paraguayan lawyers got rich from
}>it. The upshot of it is apparently that Paraguay is now notorious for
}>poor copyright protection, and the government has a poor record getting
}>reciprocal protection for its creative people in other countries.
}>Consequently Paraguayan authors have a hard time getting published
}>outside the country. There's a "golden rule" sort of lesson there that
}>unfortunately doesn't seem to fit for the Internet.
}>
}>I wish I had a positive suggestion, but I can only play critic right
}>now. (It seems to me that the challenge of being a critic is learning
}>how to disagree without becoming disagreeable.) So here are some
}>comments on other points that have come up on this and related threads.
}>
}>1) I wouldn't go as far as Greg Skinner's suggestion of a waiting period
}>allowing for challenges. Deciding on how to resolve challenges sounds
}>like an issue that would open a big can of worms.
}>
}>2) Requiring a statement about the purpose of the domain name being
}>registered isn't likely to help much, but it probably won't hurt, so
}>there are potential gains there. On the other hand, how hard is this to
}>implement? What would this involve with regard to existing
}>registrations?
}>
}>3) The idea of the domain contacts having to provide harder name and
}>location information sounds appealing to me, but I haven't seen much
}>progress in determining how this can be implemented. NSI has little
}>incentive to change; chaos and uncertainty means that more names will
}>get registered as people engage in predatory or defensive strategies.
}>
}>Craig Simon
}>
}
}
}Esther Dyson Always make new mistakes!
}chairman, EDventure Holdings
}interim chairman, Internet Corp. for Assigned Names & Numbers
}[EMAIL PROTECTED]
}1 (212) 924-8800
}1 (212) 924-0240 fax
}104 Fifth Avenue (between 15th and 16th Streets; 20th floor)
}New York, NY 10011 USA
}http://www.edventure.com
}
}PC Forum: 21 to 24 March 1999, Scottsdale (Phoenix), Arizona
}High-Tech Forum in Europe: 24 to 26 October 1999, Budapest
}Book: "Release 2.0: A design for living in the digital age"
}
}
