Joe Sims wrote:
> As to your "slippery slope" argument, it is a legitimate concern, but I
> hope (and think) that we have not started down it here.
> There is in fact a principled distinction between having a domain-name
> dispute resolution policy and content
> censorship. Assignment of unique DNS names indisputably involves, in your
> words,
> "technical issues regarding names and numbers."
>
> Having a policy for
> handling disputes over these
> unique assignments is essential to performing the required technical
> function; having a uniform
> policy among registrars in a registry is important to ensuring stability.
> The uniform dispute policy
> thus involves a technical-management function, even though the policy may
> substantively seek to
> assign names in a manner intended to avoid conflict with non-technical
> policies (i.e. trademark
> law). Regulating the content of web pages ("copyright or offensive
> content") does not seem to
> involve any technical management function. The Internet (including the
> DNS) works as well
> regardless of what is on particular web pages (with the possible exception
> of virus-laden pages,
> etc.). So the distinction is: DNS dispute policy involves a clearly
> technical function arising from
> the name-uniquenss requirement, although addressed in a way to avoid
> unnecessary conflict with
> non-technical values; web-page content regulation would seem to be an issue
> with no technical
> function involved whatsoever.
>
All of the domain name disputes to date have concerned the sequence of
the character strings, but not their size or location or functionality.
As far as I know (and I happily stand correction), they have never
concerned any of the parameters set out in the RFCs. Litigation has
related solely to the actual content of the URL and I am unable to
understand how this is more of a technical function than is the content
of the web page.
On the other hand, ICANN is not tasked with the coordination of web
content, but only that of names, addresses and parameters, so perhaps
that is a basis for distinction.
I do urge the Board to be most cautious about adopting any uniform
domain name dispute resolution policy. Use of ccTLDs is growing
steadily and is likely to be accelerated, IMHO, by the diminishing
availability of attractive names in the gTLDs. Imposing dispute
resolution policies that are hostile exclusively to domain holders in
the gTLDs would seem to encourage that trend and therefore cause mark
owners to face ever increasing risk.
Diane Cabell
http://www.mama-tech.com
Fausett, Gaeta & Lund, LLP
Boston, MA
