Kent,
I assume the following message came to you only, because I don't think I
am allowed to post to the list.
Is this true, as far as you know? I mean, what are the rules?
Regards
Roberto
CORE Registrar #10
> ----------
> From: Roberto Gaetano
> Sent: jeudi 5 février 1998 19:39
> To: 'Kent Crispin'
> Cc: gTLD-MoU Policy Advisory Body
> Subject: RE: PAB be constructive.
>
> Kent,
>
> You wrote:
>
> > Far more important is to send comments on the Green Paper.
> >
> If my contribution may help, please find below my comments to the
> Green
> Paper, that I submitted to CORE few hours ago.
>
>
> Shared Registry versus multiple independent Registries
> Competition at the Registry level may look nice on paper (best if
> green), but doesn't work in practice.
> Competition at the Registrar level is useful, because it allows end
> users to choose a different supplier for the same goods he wants, but
> what benefit can the presence of multiple Registries bring to the end
> user?
> If somebody wants to register <myname.apple>, (s)he can do this with
> different Registrars (real competition), but only with one Registry
> (see
> Appendix 1 - "Each top-level domain (TLD) database will be maintained
> by
> only one registry"). Other Registries will allow him/her to register
> "similar" names, like <myname.orange>, but not the one (s)he wants. In
> formal economical terms, different Registries offer only "substitute
> goods", and nowhere in the economic bibles this is considered as "real
> competition" (I can browse my books for appropriate authoritative
> reference on the subject, but I'm sure that we have good professional
> economists onboard that could do this faster and better than myself).
> On the other hand, multiple registries have several drawbacks, like:
> 1 - a commercial (not non-profit) Registry can raise the price for
> renewal, blackmailing the customers that would prefer to pay rather
> than
> change domain name;
> 2 - different Registries may well have different policies, different
> data format, different protocols and different interfaces to their
> Databases, which will cost more to Registrars to implement, i.e. which
> will cost more to the end user, and that will make the global
> operations
> on Trademark management (like search, verification of infringement,
> clearing) more complicated, if not impossible;
> 3 - from the practical point of view, who will oversee the "fairness"
> of
> the Registries to all Registrars? In other words, who will guarantee
> that NSI-Registry will not favour WorldNIC versus some CORE Registrar
> (or vice-versa, of course).
> So, no real benefit, but a lot of trouble.
>
> Trademark and Intellectual Property
> One of the main criticism to the current situation, and reason for
> urgent improvement, is the protection against cybersquatters and
> timely
> resolution of Trademark litigation.
> We have an authoritative model for this, coming from WIPO, the UN
> Organization in charge of international Intellectual Property
> protection
> and management. They are spending a lot of their time in defining the
> framework and the process for litigation resolution, have convened
> international meetings just to evaluate the correlation between
> Internet
> Domain Names and Trademark litigation, and are producing what is, so
> far, the only model that is acceptable to the international community.
> Moreover, we signed a MoU that is engaging us to use this model for
> disputes, and are accepting WIPO's authority. WIPO has access to our
> database for the operations aimed at detect and resolve disputes. We
> are
> therefore ready to go, now, with a process that, incidentally, not
> only
> fulfils the few requirements spelled out in Appendix 2 of the Green
> Paper, but goes well beyond that in the refinement of the process.
> On the other hand, another to-be Registry would have a lot of
> difficulties today to define a different model that could also be
> GP-compliant: the section of the Green Paper addressing this issue is
> more dedicated to asking questions than to provide answers. Its title
> is, very appropriately, the "Trademark Dilemma".
> The possibility of applying different rules to different Registries,
> that will be the consequence of refusing the application of
> international laws, favouring the local laws applicable in the elected
> jurisdiction (for instance, as suggested in the Green Paper,
> jurisdiction where the Registry or its Database resides) will add
> confusion. On a dispute between two companies involving several gTLDs,
> we can have opposite ruling for different gTLDs. The only possibility
> is
> to use international Trademark and Intellectual Property laws: the
> industry, the business world, the Internet, need to be allowed to use
> the viable solution today, i.e. WIPO ACP, they don't need to do some
> more headscratching to solve what is otherwise an unresolvable
> dilemma.
>
> Ethic
> We signed a MoU that is engaging ourselves to a specific ethical
> behaviour. We gave ourselves rules and sanctions.
> No mention to the need for basic ethic rules can be found in the Green
> Paper. On the contrary, one has the general feeling that the approach
> is
> "no rules, the market will sort it out".
> This attitude is approaching the border of irresponsibility: on one
> hand, the Green Paper claims to be willing to phase out monopoly in an
> orderly fashion, on the other hand it proposes a wild west solution,
> ignoring the progress made so far by the Internet community.
>
> Timeframe
> The Green Paper sets September 30, 1998 as the deadline by which
> competence have to be passed to the new IANA. The process will
> "commence
> as soon as possible", but is very likely to be kept on hold until
> consensus is reached on the Green Paper. Even if the possibility of a
> transition phase is envisaged, it is very likely that the current
> unsatisfactory situation will continue for the good part of the
> current
> year.
> In the meantime, as our reservation queues show, there is a real need
> and pressure from the market for a solution to be put in place within
> the shortest delays.
> CORE is ready to start on March 2, 1998, and satisfies the greater
> part
> of the requirements listed in Appendix 1 of the Green Paper: there
> should be no reason why the process of renewing the Internet cannot
> start with limited operations by CORE on at least one of the new
> gTLDs.
> On the contrary, this decision will be very beneficial to the whole
> process, because it will allow to beta-test the new system, and
> provide
> the USG with very useful indication on how the transition may work.
> All
> this at virtually no risk.
> It should be stressed that, even if the final draft of the Green Paper
> will remain as is, and will be accepted as the governing rule of the
> Internet, the inclusion later on this year of more competing
> Registries
> and more gTLDs will still be possible.
>
> Bottom-Up Process
> One of the "Principles for a new System" stated under this header in
> the
> Green Paper is the need for reflecting "the bottom-up governance that
> has characterized development of the Internet to date". The best way
> to
> follow this approach, on which there is already a large consensus, is
> to
> let the self-government process to continue. A consultation has taken
> place, the results are known, the industry has invested resources in
> the
> implementation of the chosen solution, and at this point in time
> further
> pressure from the USG will be perceived as an intrusion in the already
> ongoing bottom-up process. This intrusion will furthermore be
> incompatible with the claims of phasing out USG involvement in the
> Internet.
>
> International Scope
> Great lip service (no reference to other facts recently involving the
> White House) is paid to the International scope of the Internet, and
> to
> the "larger voice in Internet coordination" claimed by entities
> outside
> the US.
> In practice, reference to US laws is made, the new IANA is required to
> be incorporated in the US, and so on.
> No mention is made to any requirement of presence at the international
> level for Registrars or Registries is made, nor to the possible
> geographical distribution.
> No consultation has been launched at the international level for the
> preparation of the draft Green Paper that just came out.
> CORE, on the other hand, is really international in scope. CORE seat
> is
> in Europe, the Chairman comes from the US, the Vice-Chairman from
> Australia. Its members reside in all five continents, bringing the
> Registrars closer to the end users, but granting at the same time
> global
> coordination and common business practice and ethic worldwide.
>
> The .us Domain
> There is one point on which general consensus on the Green Paper can
> be
> achieved: the need for better management of the .us domain, and the
> possible migration of .gov and .mil under this TLD.
> This is a real all-US subject, where USG is sole and full responsible,
> and where action is wholeheartedly supported by the Internet
> community.
> Too bad that this is also the only point of the Green Paper where
> further action is delayed to other RFCs yet to come.
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Jan 30 2000 - 03:22:24 PST