Founder's statement

On 10 April 1999, after participating in the Singapore DNSO formation discussions in March, I took the initiative to launch the idno constituency, answering ICANN's call for a bottom-up constituency formation.

This call has been proven to be false, as ICANN has shown no interest to accept constituencies beyond those 7 it decreed from above.

Exactly two years earlier I had founded DADNO, the Democratic Association of Domain Name Owners, for the New Zealand Domain Name Owners.

Please refer to the DADNO homepage for submissions and public statements of position.

My position on Domain Name issues is archived in the listservers of domain-policy@list.internic.net, ifwp@ifwp.org, domain-policy@orsc.org, discuss@dnso.org and membership@icann.org

Here is a recent statement of position in a discussion on expansion of the Top Level Domain space in the General Assembly of the DNSO:

At 02:00 PM 30/07/1999 -0400, Kevin J. Connolly wrote:

>You are not a trademark attorney. I would be surprised to see any tolerance
>of any dilution of a mark as powerful as CocaCola. Or Golden Arches. Or
>Hidden Mickeys. There are lots of marks that have NO business being used
>in ANY context other than by (or with leave of) the fabulously successful
>enterprises that have used these marks to identify their goods and services and >which have expended millions of dollars to develop those marks. Does anyone on this
>list suppose that The CocaCola Group of Companies will not spend the $5MM or so
> it would take to squash ICANN like a bug if it poses a threat to their marks?
>

"Squashing ICANN like a bug" by spending raw cash would seem ill advised
for Fortune 500 companies who are also dependent on goodwill.
More likely would be a policy of lobbying and attempting to co-opt whoever
would try to have a say in the future ICANN. Especially ambitious TM lawyers.

Let me speak here as a "mom & pop store" TM holder. I might be the only
real one on this list.
I have spent good money acquiring a TM for my unique company name, even
successfully fighting off a big and greedy Fortune 500 company.
Why? *Because* I'm on the Net. (With the rush to register businesses on
the Net, isn't this music in the ears of TM registering law firms?)

If I only had a corner store in meatspace, would I care if someone in
Singapore or Japan would "dilute" my mark by having a similar DN registered?

But because I am on the Net, it makes a difference.

If someone would start registering my trademarked name under other TLD's ,
what can I do about it?
Let me hear a sensible suggestion from those TM attorneys that have
professed to care for those TM owners who have only been their clients for
the registration process, but who would be very hesitant to litigate.

To forestall conflict, I could also agree with a registry requirement that
demands evidence of good faith from the registrant with regards to other
people's registered trademarks.

But beyond that it is trademark law that has to adjust to new technology,
not new technology that should be curbed to accommodate luddite fears or be
abused to expand IP rights into unjustified power.

Now here's my take on expansion of the TLD space.
The limited space and the popularity of .com have created the impression of
an artificial shortage of SLD's . This impression of shortage is highly
beneficial to the current registries. It also has attracted aspirants, who
want a share of this pie by having a few more TLD's, but certainly not too
many.

Some of these aspirants are now speaking on behalf of the poor oppressed
mom & pop TM owners to bolster a weak argument to continue a squeeze on
the TLD space that has little to do with TM protection.

Trying to stop expansion of the TLD space does not bring any real benefits
to small-time TM owners. The ways by which trademarks can be perceived to
be diluted on the Net are near-infinite, even under the current TLD setup.

The courts in the major jurisdictions are continuing to bring more clarity
in what is infringement on the Net and what is not. This is needed and
should continue.
Voluntary adherence to a dispute resolution scheme can make conflicts less
costly.

But translating IP protection into raw power over the Domain space of the
Internet is not the answer.

What the Famous Marks and their lobbyists are trying to do is to argue the
technical *possibilities* of brand creation that the Internet brings into a
pro-active stranglehold on the liberty and property of others.
For the benefit of all current and future Domain name Owners and to
encourage further investment in a Net presence by Individuals (the mom& pop
stores) , this should be resisted.

--Joop Teernstra LL.M.-- , bootstrap of
the Cyberspace Association,
the constituency for Individual Domain Name Owners
http://www.democracy.org.nz/idno/

Postings to the ifwp (the International Forum on the White Paper) can be found archived on the web at www.ifwp.org

My submission to NTIA, on the bylaws of NewCo can be found here.

My presentations to the General Assembly of the DNSO and the ICANN Board on May 26 in Berlin are archived on video here:

http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/berlin/archive/may25.html#DNSO_ga

My pleadings on behalf of the Individual Domain Name Owners in Santiago, Chile can be found here.

The Individual Domain Name Owners' constituency is proposed as a corrective addition to the gerrymandered and exclusive startup constituencies that have been dictated for the DNSO by the interim ICANN Board at the Singapore meetings.

By pre-determining the bootstrap constituencies for the DNSO, rather than leaving all constituency formation to the stakeholders themselves or accepting a General Assembly model without privileged constituents, the interim ICANN board may have overstepped it's mandate.

It is my hope and expectation that the idno constituency will ally itself with other constituencies or sub-constituencies that may form in the DNSO to achieve its aims of making sure that the Individual Domain Name Owner remains represented at all times.

Please help us achieve our goals by joining us, even if you are involved with other constituencies.

We are open to all interested Domain Name Owners or even to prospective Domain Name owners.