P Brewster, presumably, wrote, > >The Initial Board noted that a uniform dispute settlement mechanism was a > >necessary element of a competitive registrar system. The Initial Board noted > >that the scope of this policy should be wider than the cases of abusive > >registration with which the WIPO report deals, and ultimately covers all > >commercial dispute issues linked to Domain Name registrations. To this end, > >ICANN-accredited registrars are being encouraged to develop and voluntarily > >adopt a model dispute resolution policy... I'm almost embarassed to make a suggestion here, but sometimes its necessary to spell out even the most obvious things in utmost detail. Historically (that is, since 1995 when commerce in DNs began), 'disputes' have arisen when some DN fails to accurately reflect the expectations of the 'end user' or to manifest the intentions of the nameholder, to such an extent that some complaint is made -- sometimes to the nameholder, sometimes to the name registrar, sometimes (we can expect) to ICANN and or WIPO. The unfortunate fact is, there has been, to date, no uniform settlement mechanism, and thus many such complaints have been poorly resolved, while others continue to be unresolved, and altogether the effect of this omission has been almost more confusing to the net- using public than any particular 'conflict' might have been. As a first step towards such a unform model of dispute resolution, therefore, I would like to suggest a technique borrowed from 'natural' languages, where disputes after all, have been resolved for many thousands of years. In the newly-invented language of domain names, this technique can perhaps be most appropriately be designated as <code>?</code> altho "Character 63," or Chr$(063) would do as well. That is, regardless of what other local or idiosyncratic resolution processes may pertain at present or in future (and the prospect of multiple registries increases the likelihood of such processes being adopted),, a simple, almost automatic, modification of the domain name is all that is required. This modification consists entirely of the addition of a single character -- number 63 in the ASCII symbolic code; *no other change to the name need be considered*. The "resolution" process can then take up the merits of whether to again remove the addition. As it happens, this character has been used widely -- one might say universally -- in pre-Internet vernaculars for the precise purpose of identifying a degree of uncertainty in human expression. It is this congruence with conventional speech patterns which lets me suggest that the root cause of disputes has been that names do not in themselves comprise a language, that we stand at a crucial moment of definition of *domain-language syntax*, and that such a uniform procedure can be known as *interrogation*. Present policy has relied on suspension or 'take-down' of a disputed name -- losing one's site name has effectively been the same as losing the site if it is involved in social intercourse. Indeed, this equivalence of the name and the thing is at the root of magic and other 'primitive' practices; if one can (not) talk about 'it,' 'it' must (not) exist. But, some thousands of years further along the curve of civilization, humanity invented *questioning as the way to talk about (or point at) that which does not exist. The simple addition of a question mark to the domain 'corpus' is sufficient to bring the Internet up to modern standards, and its relief of what heretofore has necessarily been an *assertion* will, I believe, be an adequate basis of uniform dispute resolution. That this is a *linguistic solution to the confusing effects of *policy may be a coincidence or not, but by those who know the technical details of administration and governance much better than I do (dont they?), I hope it will be taken seriously. =============== Among other news: > >The Initial Board also passed ... a > >resolution through which the Initial Board accepted the principles set forth > >by its Advisory Committee on Independent Review. The Advisory Committee > >recommended that ICANN set up an Independent Review Board empowered to > >consider complaints that decisions by the ICANN Board violate of ICANN's > >bylaws. I'll be damned if they dont! doesnt it just make you really proud that the committee which was set up to advise not only advised, but its advice has been accepted? Yes indeed, there should be a safeguard against the abuse of power. Now why cant all you fractious SO - beginners behave as nicely? > >If you have questions, please contact: > >Pamela Brewster and Josh McCloskey > >Alexander Ogilvy Public Relations Worldwide > >(+1-415) 923 1660 > >[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >[EMAIL PROTECTED] Yes, just one *question: who gave you permission to describe the Interim Board as *Initial*? Does this not create considerable confusion in the public mind, by obscuring the fact that *this board is an "experiment" (Zittrain) and has not been seated under ICANN bylaws? In your opinion, might this therefore not be grounds for suit by the first *elected ICANN board, for loss of goodwill, and indeed, perhaps, trade? I look forward to your prompt reply. kerry
