|
The
first posting that called for the convening of the constituency of Individual
Domain name Owners:
Date: 10 April 1999
To: domain-policy@open-rsc.org, Domain policy@lists.internic.net,
list@ifwp.org
From:Joop Teernstra terastra@terabytz.co.nz
Subject: the Individual Domain Name Owners' Constituency
CC:edyson@edventure.com, isocnz-l@isocnz.org
Friends,
The effort that I undertook in Singapore, together with Jay Fenello
and many others, to have the Individual Domain Name Owners recognized
as one of the bootstrap-constituencies in the DNSO has been only partly
successful.
What the ICANN board has edicted is
1. a constituency for non-commercial DN owners
2. a constituency of business interests.
Yet, Esther said (perhaps facetiously) that forming the constituencies
prior to the Berlin meet, is now a bottom-up effort.
Well, right here from the bottom,
I propose a constituency of Individual DN owners without the artificial
caste-barrier.
There are hundreds of thousands of DN owners who do not want to be
classified as non-commercial even if they might be so today.
Yet in the business-interests constituency they will not get the representation
they will want and need: protections against the WIPO lobby, that will,
if unchecked, let big business with large law firms ride roughshod over
small business.
As small and , for registries, insignificant players, they will also
need special protections against arrogant behaviour and abuse of power
by registries. They need to have their ownership of their Domain recognized.
These protections will have to be lobbied for in the DNSO.
If these protections have to come from the at-large ICANN membership,
they will come too late.
I am convinced that the policy recommendations that will come out of
the DNSO will carry a great deal of weight for the future elected ICANN
board.
Why else would the DNSO formation have mattered so much for the ICANN
interim Board to have both Esther and Joe Sims present all the time?
All we need to do is to present the constituency in Berlin, as a united
front of both business and non-business DN owners, concerned about the
same issues.
Please email your support for such a constituency to the list or to
me.
I will need to know who supports such a constituency, well before I
would decide to go to Berlin on your behalf.
Actually, it would be more economical and practical if someone based
in Europe could represent us in Berlin.
Please comment or react. Your enemy is apathy.
And a further clarification in a discussion with
Mr Sondow:
At 00:33 11/04/99 -0400, you wrote:
>Joop Teernstra a écrit:
>>
>> Friends,
>>
>> The effort that I undertook in Singapore, together
with Jay Fenello and
>> many others, to have the Individual Domain Name Owners recognized
as one of
>> the bootstrap-constituencies in the DNSO has been only partly
successful.
>
>While you may be right that it has been only partially successful,
I
>don't believe you can justifiably ascribe what success it has had
>principally to yourself, as you seem to be doing here.
No, Michael, I'm just one of many. Don't read
more into what I say than there is.
I'm only saying that I undertook an effort. By golly, I did. Now I am
looking for support.
If I do not find any, I will admit that I stand alone.
But it doesn't seem to be going that way.
Those
>principally responsible for the existence of the NCDNHC don't speak
>in your tone of voice.
>
Who are those pricipally responsible for the existence
of the NCDNHC?
I would think the interim ICANN Board.
Or did you mean yourself?
I posted my call for unity because I'm not comfortable
with the NCetc. effort. I have never been interested in an NCDNHC.
What I have pleaded for, both publicly and privately, is a constituency
of Individual DN owners, such as was mentioned as a "possible"
constituency in the CENTR document.
>> What the ICANN board has edicted is
>> 1. a constituency for non-commercial DN owners
>> 2. a constituency of business interests.
>>
>> Yet, Esther said (perhaps facetiously) that forming the constituencies
>> prior to the Berlin meet, is now a bottom-up effort.
>
>Their formation, but not their re-creation to suit the ambitions
of
>those who have been only peripherally involved in their creation.
>
A recurring theme in your postings. I recall your
insistence on "prerogatives" after becoming a "participant"
in Monterrey.
>> Well, right here from the bottom,
>> I propose a constituency of Individual DN owners without the
artificial
>> caste-barrier.
>
>The distinction between commercial and non-commercial domain name
>holders is not a caste-barrier, it is simply a reflection of the
>current real struggle in the use of domain names. The decision to
>name a constituency "non-commercial" rather than "individual"
or
>"non-profit" or something else is one of the most astute
choices
>that has been made by ICANN, as it provides forums for the
>conflicting groups that already exist and which cannot arrive at
a
>compromise until they are able to confront each other in a
>structured and public arena.
>
I reckon the division has come about as a compromise
between the differing wishes of the interim Board Members.
Only those who favour Divide and Rule would call it astute.
Prevent the DN name owners from uniting to present their common interests.
Let them spend their energies on fighting against each other in a public
arena.
Please tell me, what are these fundamental differences in interest between
commercial and non-commercial Domains, either vis-a-vis the WIPO lobby
or against monopolistic registries?
I like to see a united constituency, simply because
I see no reason in turning non-commercial into anti-commercial.
I have no ambition to be its leader, but I would like to see the leadership
in competent and diplomatic hands.
>> There are hundreds of thousands of DN owners
who do not want to be
>> classified as non-commercial even if they might be so today.
>
>They are free to choose between the two primary opposing forces:
>commercial and non-commercial use of domain names. Within those
>choices, they can militate for whatever freedoms they wish, and
>perhaps those who desire to maintain free access to domain names
and
>the right to protection of them will succeed best by participating
>in all the constituencies, as will undoubtedly occur without your
>artificial relegation of the "freedom lovers" into isolation.
>
>> Yet in the business-interests constituency they
will not get the
>> representation they will want and need: protections against
the WIPO lobby,
>> that will, if unchecked, let big business with large law firms
ride
>> roughshod over small business.
>
>And so you propose that the six commercial constituencies be
>deprived of any voice against the control of the DNS by trademarks?
>That is your solution?
>
I do not see how you can draw that conclusion.
Individuals who want to be part of the TM constituency, although they
do not share the WIPO views, can still do so. It may be an exercise
in frustration, but it could still be effective in moderating TM extremism
and I would certainly encourage it.
But a constituency which is of one view is the one that can be effective
in DNSO policymaking.
They will still have to do battle with the registry interests and the
"anti counterfeiting" lobby.
>> As small and , for registries, insignificant
players, they will also need
>> special protections against arrogant behaviour and abuse of
power by
>> registries. They need to have their ownership of their Domain
recognized.
>
>That is a separate issue, and one which will not be decided in the
>DNSO but rather in the highest courts, no doubt to the detriment
of
>the domain holders, but at the same time to the detriment of the
>greediest aspirations of the registries and trademark interests.
In
>brief, it is unlikely that any one sector will be granted property
>rights over domain names. Certainly it can never be an outcome of
>the relegation of individual DN holders to a single constituency
in
>the DNSO.
>
>> If these protections have to come from the at-large
ICANN membership, they
>> will come too late.
>
>Neither the At-large membership nor the board nor the ICANN in its
>entirety will, in the end, have anything to say on the matter, which
>can only be disentangled by legislation. Come back down to earth,
>for your own sake, and educate yourself by reading the DNRC's
>analyses of the question of property rights in domain names. Then,
>hopefully, you will cease leading gullible people astray.
>
There is no need to discourage people from forming
a united front by insulting them.
If the courts are going to decide the nuances
of Intellectual Property and ownership, it will surely make a difference
if the small player can have top-of-the-line advocates.
>> I am convinced that the policy recommendations
that will come out of the
>> DNSO will carry a great deal of weight for the future elected
ICANN board.
>
>No doubt. But they will be very different from what you pretend.
>
What do you know about the nature of future policy
recommendations? What do I pretend?
>> All we need to do is to present the constituency
in Berlin, as a united
>> front of both business and non-business DN owners, concerned
about the same
>> issues.
>
>You exaggerate. But even if there were a united purpose, to group
>all individual domain name holders into one constituency is a
>horrendous tactical error. But you are not able to even formulate
>coherently what you intend, because it isn't coherent and you are
>not yourself motivated by any reasonable and attainable aspiration.
>Rather, you are a minor demagogue looking for a following.
>
Well, thank you Michael.
A minor ad-hominem as a substitute for sound argument.
I think I have been pretty coherent in my postings
and submissions over the last two years.
I do not expect people who see commercial and non-commercial as black
and white to agree with me.
You are welcome to go your own way with your ICIIU and the NCDNHC.
I see the future of the Net differently. Every
Domain can have commercial and non-commercial aspects.
The Net is, among other things, a (commercial/non-commercial) network
of Individuals.
Commercial does not necessarily mean Corporate.
Netizens are both producers and consumers.
What they all need is a secure environment to exist in, without the
threat of arbitrary TM attacks or registry abuse-of-power.
For that they need solid and united representation in the DNSO.
As Individual DN owners.
July
28, 1998: Real Video proceedings of the IFWP-Geneva meeting plenary
sessions are now available:
* IFWP
Plenary sessions 1 and 2 for July 24, 1998
http://realserver.itu.ch/ifwp/ifwp240798-1.ram
http://realserver.itu.ch/ifwp/ifwp240798-2.ram
* IFWP
Plenary sessions 1,2 and 3 for July 25, 1998
http://realserver.itu.ch/ifwp/ifwp250798-1.ram
http://realserver.itu.ch/ifwp/ifwp250798-2.ram
http://realserver.itu.ch/ifwp/ifwp250798-3.ram
|
