Thats the point - we do not know.
I say we try it, and get some real world data. If it turns out it
works we can delpoy it on a more widespread basis.
I echo PDT's sentiments though... no "cybersquatter" has ever won
in court and the benefits do not outweightthe burdon.
At 07:03 PM 5/29/99 -0400, you wrote:
>Process issues aside, and assuming we can fix the (serious) glitches
>(timetable, free expression protection), isn't this proposal better than
>the NSI dispute policy. (I mean just chapter 3, not chapter 4).
>
>On Sat, 29 May 1999, Richard J. Sexton wrote:
>
>> Have we fogotten that it was a consensus item that a unifom ADR is not desirable
>> art the Geneva IFWP meeting?
>>
>> Didd anybody else notice that nobody ever asked the question this time round
>> "is a uniform ADR desirable" ????
>>
>>
>> At 10:32 AM 5/29/99 -0400, Esther Dyson wrote:
>> >Jeri -
>> >
>> >In our conversation on Thursday, I said to you that we had endorsed many of
>> >the "principles" of the WIPO report, most notably uniform dispute
>> >resolution, but not the specific recomemendations.
>> >
>> > I suggested that you consult the press release and resolutions for
>> >details, which include separate approaches to three separate
>> >categories/sections of the report (and which you to some extent outline
>> >later in the story). We did, as many public comments had advised us to,
>> >refer the second two categories (as opposed to approaches we had de facto
>> >already adopted in our registrar accreditation guidelines) to the DNSO. In
>> >other words, though the second paragraph of the story and subsequent details
>> >were better, the lede was seriously misleading. What more can I say?
>> >
>> >Unfortunately, these seemingly subtle distinctions are important. (For
>> >everyone: The details are at
>> >http://www.icann.org/berlin/berlin-resolutions.html and
>> >http://www.icann.org/berlin/berlin-details.html.)
>> >
>> >
>> >Esther
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > May 28, 1999
>> >
>> >
>> > Internet Board Backs Rules to Limit
>> > Cybersquatters
>> >
>> > By JERI CLAUSING
>> >
>> > he board of the Internet's new oversight organization on Thursday
>> > endorsed a controversial set of recommendations for cracking
>> > down on so-called cybersquatters, who register trademarks and other
>> > popular words as Internet addresses.
>> >
>> > Esther Dyson, interim chairman of the organization, the Internet
>> > Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, emphasized that the
>> > board's endorsement merely affirmed the broader principles of the
>> > recommendations, which were issued last month by the World
>> > Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), an arm of the United
>> > Nations. Many of the details, she said, would be open to amendment.
>> >
>> > The board deferred final adoption of the
>> > recommendations until they can be reviewed by
>> > one of ICANN's newly formed member groups.
>> > Absent from that group, however, is the
>> > constituency that critics say have the most to lose
>> > under the recommendations: individuals and
>> > non-commercial interests who have already
>> > registered Internet addresses and could have them
>> > taken away.
>> >
>> > Like everything surrounding the Clinton
>> > Administration's process for handing administration
>> > of the Internet to ICANN, the board's action was
>> > immediately criticized as contrary to its charge to
>> > be a "bottom's up" organization and follow the lead
>> > of its worldwide constituents.
>> >
>> > Brian O'Shaughnessy, a spokesman for Network Solutions Inc., which
>> > has held an exclusive government contract for registering names in the
>> > top-level domains of .com, .net and org since 1993, said after
>> >Thursday's
>> > action that ICANN was envisioned "as a limited standard-setting body
>> > which is consensus based." But he said that when the board begins
>> > making such decisions, "It's top down instead of bottoms up."
>> >
>> > A. Michael Froomkin, a University of Miami law professor who advised
>> > WIPO on the recommendations and who has been critical of some of its
>> > major provisions, said he was pleased that the ICANN endorsement
>> > applied only to the broader dispute resolution principles. Three other
>> > chapters, including that recommending that ICANN establish a system
>> > for protecting not only trademarks but other famous words, was
>> >referred
>> > to the membership committee without recommendation.
>> >
>> > Still, he questioned the need for the board to take any action yet.
>> >
>> > "Why are they endorsing things before they send them to the supporting
>> > organization for review? " he asked.
>> >
>> > The unanimous endorsement of the principles by ICANN's board came
>> > during an eight-hour closed board meeting in Berlin, where the board
>> > also finalized a $5.9 million budget that will be financed in part
>> >by a $1 a
>> > year fee on every domain name registered and on fees and dues from
>> > companies ICANN approves to begin competing with Network
>> > Solutions.
>> >
>> > In addition, the board approved the structure of two of three
>> >supporting
>> > groups that will make up the nonprofit corporation's membership.
>> >
>> > One of those three is the Domain Name Supporting Organization
>> > (DNSO), which has been charged with making recommendations to
>> > ICANN on how and when to add new top-level domains like .com to
>> > the global network.
>> >
>> > Its first order of business, however, is to carry out rules
>> >governing the
>> > registration of domain names. Specifically, ICANN asked the new group
>> > to begin drafting a plan on how to move forward with the WIPO
>> > recommendations.
>> >
>> > "It's clear that this is urgent so we sent that right to the DNSO
>> >saying that
>> > we basically support the WIPO report but there are issues about how to
>> > implement it," Dyson said.
>> >
>> > The WIPO proposal has been criticized as favoring trademark holders
>> > and wealthy corporate interests over small businesses, nonprofit
>> >groups
>> > and individual Internet users.
>> >
>> > Although the board action is an official endorsement of the WIPO
>> > principals, Dyson said the recommendations are still "very much" open
>> > for change by the domain name supporting organization.
>> >
>> > But that group is still lacking one of its seven constituencies:
>> >the group
>> > that is supposed to represent individual and non-commercial domain
>> > name holders. The other six constituencies - representing groups like
>> > trademark holders, registries and Internet service providers - were
>> > approved by the board Thursday.
>> >
>> > "These guys are stragglers," Dyson said. "They basically did not come
>> > together with a proposal. We hope to have that resolved in June. We
>> > told them to come back to us."
>> >
>> > Despite the missing link, Dyson said the DNSO has been asked to begin
>> > work immediately on the WIPO report so that the board can adopt some
>> > of its provisions at its next board meeting in Santiago, Chile, in
>> >August.
>> >
>> > ICANN on Thursday also accepted
>> > an application for the Protocol
>> > Supporting Organization, which will
>> > deal with more technical aspects of
>> > the Internet's architecture. It expects
>> > to formally recognize a third group,
>> > the Address Supporting Organization
>> > in Santiago.
>> >
>> > Thursday's board meeting - the third formal meeting of the interim
>> > ICANN board -- followed a daylong public hearing where the board
>> > took comment on all of the items on its closed meeting agenda. It also
>> > discussed the progress, or lack thereof, in opening the domain name
>> > registration business to competition.
>> >
>> > ICANN was formed last year to take over the administrative
>> >functions of
>> > the Internet that previously were conducted by government contractors
>> > and to open the registration process to competition. Last month it
>> >chose
>> > the first five companies to test a shared registration system built by
>> > Network Solutions.
>> >
>> > The test phase officially began April 26, but none of the five
>> >companies
>> > has yet been able to go live and begin registering names in the
>> >top-level
>> > domains of .com, .net and org.
>> >
>> > Ken Stubbs, who represents the only nonprofit entity participating
>> >in the
>> > test, the Internet Council of Registrars, complained to the board that
>> > important software from Network Solutions does not work, and that the
>> > non-disclosure agreement Network Solutions made the test participants
>> > sign prohibits them from discussing the test problems with ICANN.
>> >
>> > Dyson said she was disturbed by Stubbs comments.
>> >
>> > "My goal had been for the test to be a source of information not
>> >just for
>> > the people directly involved in the test but for everyone who
>> >wants to be
>> > a registrar down the road," she said.
>> >
>> > O'Shaughnessy said the non-disclosure agreement was a standard
>> > contract meant to protect the company's proprietary information.
>> >
>> > "There is nothing particularly unique about it," he said. "They
>> >are holding
>> > it up as if it's restrictive, but it's a standard NDA.
>> >
>> > The reason the test information has not yet been shared with ICANN is
>> > simple, O'Shaughnessy said: "ICANN hasn't signed the non-disclosure
>> > agreement."
>> >
>> >
>> >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 http://www.icann.org
>> >
>> >High-Tech Forum in Europe: 24 to 26 October 1999, Budapest
>> >PC Forum: March 12 to 15, 2000, Scottsdale (Phoenix), Arizona
>> >Book: "Release 2.0: A design for living in the digital age"
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> --
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Remember, amateurs built the Ark. Professionals built the Titanic.
>>
>>
>
>--
>A. Michael Froomkin | Professor of Law | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA
>+1 (305) 284-4285 | +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax) | http://www.law.tm
> --> It's hot here. <--
>
>
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Remember, amateurs built the Ark. Professionals built the Titanic.
