browse comments: WIPO RFC-2

WIPO RFC-2
Free Community Network (bob@fcn.net)
Sat, 19 Sep 1998 01:04:40 -0400

Browse by: [ date ][ subject ][ author ]
Next message: Time Warner Inc: "WIPO RFC-2"
Previous message: shelley@sherlock.stanford.edu: "WIPO RFC-2"

WIPO Wipeout!

Comments on Issues Addressed
in the misguided and quixotic WIPO
Internet Domain Name Process.
(WIPO RFC-2)

by Bob Allisat

bob@fcn.net

URLs:
http://fcn.net
http://fcn.net/allisat
http://fcn.net/wipeout.html

Domain Names besides their function as Internet
addresses have been used and in many cases abused as
business tools in order to market and identify various
products old and new. Beyond this relatively recent
commercialisation of what is referred to as "the namespace"
lies the huge and original non-commercial usage serving
diverse and more important social, political and cultural
roles. Protest actions, ideological and philosophical
expressions, artistic creation, personal relations and the
endless list of human endeavour, folly, sexuality and so on
express themselves through Internet domain names. It is
these critical functions that tend to be dismissed by
business interests and ignored and run roughshod over in
recent legal and corporate manuverings to "control" what
is perceived to be a renegade medium: the Internet and
specifically the namespace.

It is equally important and often more important in a civil
democratic society to have (for example) coca cola.com as it is
to have cocacola-sucks.org. It is more relevant and important to
protect the rights of say nikeslavelabour.org as it is to save the
owners of the nike.com any embarrassment from exposure of illicit
labour practices. The role and protections of free citizans extend
far beyond the narrow interests of a few institutions.

What we have been witnessing is the gradual strangulation of
dissent and opinion in the wholesale rush to attempt and protect
words and letters, phrases and ideas all of which have themselves
universal ownership. Except for the fact that they are hedged in
and backed up by massive corporate legal departments these alleged
intellectual properties are rather less important than the protection
of my rights and abilities as a citizen to royally satire, ridicule
and generally criticize, mock, enjoy, poke fun at and manipulate
terms, images, popular culture to my own ends, education and
general edification or amusement.

Alas a large and unaddressed problem in the long controversy over
domain names is the manner in which the process has been controlled
and manipulated in favour of corporate and established interests.
The rights and duties and intellectual property of individuals, small
and unincorporated entities, non-profit and non-governmental groups,
sub-cultural or creative collectives have all been ignored and
effectively dismissed... especially by Trademark laden Multinational
Corporation dominated institutions such as WIPO and ITU (International
Tele-communications Union (an assembly of huge telephone companies) as
well as ISOC (Internet Society: funded by computer and technology
corporations), NSI (the organization that controls Internic which
currently dispensed .COM, .NET, .ORG called Network Solutions itself
Owned by SAIC a large US defence contractor with powerful links to
American intelligence and military entities) and even IANA (Internet
Assigned Number Authority, AKA Jon Postel, working out of the
University of California with heavy supporting ties to other groups
such as IETF - Internet Engineering Task Force... dominated by
working groups largely drawn from corporate Research and Development
staff, IAB, IAHC and so on).

The list of acronymic, corporate sponsored participants to the process
is as long as it is difficult to understand for the novice or newcomer.
With few exceptions all have expressed the interests and views of so-
called "dominant culture" interests at the critical expense of a wider,
more influential if less well represented constituents... the so-called
"netizen" or citizen of the Internet. It is these netizens who make up
the bulk of Internet activity from e-mail and ftp to the plethora of
World Wide Web sites. And it is these people whose intellectual property
rights and Copyrights and incipient Trademarks, brand names and ideas
have been run roughshod over in the pell mell rush to make the Net "safe
for business". In so doing it has made the same network hazardous for
people with rights and freedoms, liberties and enshrined obligations
making it hard for many people to do as they please and live life to
it's fullest. Even if it means stepping on big toes and/or crossing
lines of conduct that amount to nothing more than multinational,
industrial conglomerate created taboo structures. To paraphrase Lenny
Bruce: If I can't say fuckMacdonalds.com I can't say fuck.

It is the vast and overwhelming majority of people using the Internet
and generating all the financial transactions that pay for the Internet
who have been left off the agenda. We have more right to an unrestricted
namespace than any paper or legal object Like a company, "Limited",
Incorporated, GBH or other profit-making edifice. Men and women as
individuals and in small groups are the dominant force on the Internet.
It is OUR interests we must foremost protect even at the expense of
"famous" names. After all it was we the people who made them famous,
bought their products, made their fortunes. It must be we who determine
their fate not the other way around.

The international protection of intellectual property has to date
focussed altogether away from the massive rights on the pipsqueaks
and nobodies like me. I create things equally important to any
company. We the small groups and businesses generate vastly more
intellectual and economic property in dire need of protection than
all corporations combined times a thousand. And yet we are dispensed
with at every turn, ignored in all the official sounding and biassed
pronouncements of all the corporate backed think-tanks and hot air
institutes which have descended on our Internet like vultures on
the kill. No more, thank you very much. We want our names and we want
them to be free or as free as possible. We will not be mere silent
subjects of a Consumer/military-industrial complex free to do as it
pleases while we suffer. We have superior rights to an unencumbered
namespace, IP address system and Internet Governance structure and
we will be heard and hold control. One way or the other. Sooner or
later. Alas, come hell or high water, fast or famine... like they
say "We shall overcome".

Recall the foundations of the Internet. As a rather unexpected
outcropping of American military culture what brought the Net to
it's current, seemingly endless zenith was not the Armed Forces
or sundry US Intelligence gathering cabals. It was decidedly not the
relative new-comers to this process like the fat footed WIPO and the
dreaded and largely incompetent ITU. Neither in the final analysis was
it the educational institutions, technophile krypto-cabals running
the machines nor even the governments also lining up to take the claim
and stake control over this amazing phenomenon of the Internet. What
drove the Net from nether world obscurity to truly historic,
revolutionary dimensions and depth is the hundred million people using
it. Folk power is what came to bear and propels everything else.
Foremost in any regulatory structure must be the protection of the
"folk" not various power cliques who more or less exist as parasites
or dependencies upon the folk.

In the prevention of predatory behaviour by various small but well
organized lobbies and interests against "we the people" we have to
protect our abilities to use the language as damn well please. That
includes domain names. Regardless of famous or well-known marks (trade
or otherwise) the population has greater rights and freedoms. While it
may be of interest to those who own companies to fence off elements of
the common language it is decidedly against the general good to allow
this to occur in the largely unlimited and unrestricted manner it is
occurring as we speak. So to speak.

The way we can balance the interests of what amount to very small
minority interests (in the form of the owners of companies) and the
over-riding and vastly outnumbering majority of regular citizens is
to severely limit Trademark protections to situations where fraudulent
or dishonest behaviour may lead to public harm or abuse.

It is not the interests of the company that come first. Never. It is
the interests of the over-riding majority that must dominate. Pepsi
has to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune in the face
of screwpepsi.com even as it must be, in a very specific manner,
protected from being taken up as a name by some other group of business
people and sold in a perhaps inferior form. The protection, security,
health
and safety of the people is first and foremost concern. Last is the
"property
rights" of commerce, which exist solely because "We the people" make
certain
allowances... allowances that are withdrawn should harm come to us in
their granting.

Negative consequences have been inflicted on the general population (in
the form of citizens occupying the internet) to an increasing degree.
This harm has occurred in many forms: the arbitrary introduction of
extreme fees on Domain Names; the imposition of rules and regulations
on these names without reference to any popular process; the rise of
more and more legal actions by corporations against so called "cyber-
squatters", alleged "cyber-pirates" and so-on in defence of brand
names even if many of the victims of these actions claimed the names
and were there *BEFORE* the Johnny come lately corporations; the
enormous pressure and delay tactics preventing the introduction of
new Domain Names of all varieties by vested interests; the sundry and
grey zone threats and legal documents served on small business and
private people by companies for even the most minor critical or even
supportive use of so-called "Intellectual Property".

Once again it appears the over-riding interests of "We the people" are
being severely compromised. And is is imperative to halt the process
from becoming codified - as WIPO appears to be bent upon doing. No way,
no how, not ever will that occur.

The only way to protect citizens from predatory pseudo-disputes
involving overly-zealous corporate Trademark lawyers and clerks is
to enhance vigilance and procedures protecting INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS.
The number of situations a Trademark should be offered protection
must be limited to matters of severe criminal activity. Beyond
that the populace must be free from corporate predation. With specific
reference to Domain Names in an unrestricted namespace there will be
a hundred thousand suns, apples, fords, etc. Only in highly formal
and limited manners should any of our abilities to utilise these
universals be infringed. Once again only for the most severe kinds
of CRIMINAL activity. Because it pisses off some Vice President of
sales or a few shareholders or a bureaucrat is not good enough
reason to yoke us all to a virtual world of what amounts to severe
mind and thought restrictions. Never was, never will be.

Any contract or agreement or usage of the Internet name or number
space has the right to privacy and relatively unrestricted creation.
As long as no-one is hurt and no grievous crime is occurring there
seems no role for some damned corporate watchdog bureaucracy to go
poking it's nose in the business of everyday life. That means sorry
WIPO, your role in all this is, to quote Burt Reynolds: "diddly squat".

The same situation applies to any data gathered in registering domain
names. Such information is PRIVATE, CONFIDENTIAL, OBTAINABLE ONLY BY
LAW AND COURT ORDER IN THE EVENT OF CRIMINAL ACTIVITY. There is no way
citizens will be forced to identify themselves to uncontrolled corporate
interests. No fucking way excuse the colloquialism.

As for activation of any domain names a universal, corporate legal
department protective waiting period is also a highly suspect and,
in the end, unworkable and unacceptable proposition. It is up to
individuals to decide, in the course of their interactions, what to
do with their names and when or if to activate them.

Attempting to shackle the whole Domain Name Registration process to
the crawl think of litigation crazy law firms is even crazier.
Madder still is the idea of suspending activation of mere character
sets for payment of fees which, in reality will be nominal should
the namespace be unrestricted. The idea of preventing Jack or Jill
Citizen from using YOURNAME.NOW for non-payment of a $5.00 fee is
absurd to the extreme an could only be conceived of in situations
remote from the realities of real live domain name service providers.

The issue of warehousing domain names is peculiar as well in it's
recent addressing. It is inappropriate and legally actionable for
a private citizen to hoard domains which may or may not contain
alleged trademark contents. It is, however, quite all right for
corporations to consume vast quantity of domain names representing
common terms (CARROTS.COM, UNDERARM.COM, etc). Seems to be a double
standard here. Seems to point to abuses occurring at all levels.
Seems to indicate hoarding of all varieties is not positive. Seems
to indicate that if hoarding is to be condoned on a corporate level
it must be allowed by individuals as well. Once again it if we are
to err it must be in the interests of the unprotected and relatively
harmless individuals. Better still we must apply rule evenly and
fairly regardless. Indeed if a person controls a domain name or even
a hundred domain names the harm caused by that is relatively minor.
In turn the wholesale imprisonment of tens of thousands of common
words or phrases in corporate cyber-vaults is vastly more damaging.

A recurring concept that any databases of registrant be open to
one and all and especially formulated to assist and abed in
legal persecution of individuals by corporate legal action is also
sick and twisted. Protections should work in the exact opposite
manner... personal information must be protected to the extreme
from this and any other data mining. No matter how many conflicting
or contradictory domain names there may be allowing instant and
random access to private information is an egregious concept not
to mention a violation of privacy and other civil liberties and
human rights. Information like that is confidential. Period. Beyond
respecting human rights and civil liberties, as well as obeying
reasonable laws and technical regulations, various domain name
service providers must not be turned into so many intelligence
gathering organs of companies worldwide. It's neither feasible
nor, more importantly, ethical.

As for inevitable disputes it is clear that an enormous amount of
latitude will have to be the rule as opposed to the current
exception. People who are offended will, alas, have to live with
their hurt feelings. Companies that have perceived grievances will,
unfortunately have to bear their crosses. The slew of largely
malicious and frivolous legal actions and civil court procedures
based on over-zealous legal quibbling will have to be brought under
control in a severe manner. Only in the most outrageous and
damaging of circumstances should any sort of formal codified
sanctions be applied in such trivial manners as words and names,
character and numeric sets. We are not talking matters of life or
death here. Unless we are there is no role or intolerance for
infringing upon the free and unfettered utilisation of a virtually
unlimited field of universal symbols.

In a nutshell the only regulation are the courts, a few basic
technical guidelines and a rough agreement to live and let live.
Only in the most serious and life-threatening situations is there
any role for interference. Clumsy WIPO mind set institutional
interventions only harm the general good and cripple our liberties
as citizens. Recall, on top of all that, that there are 190 plus
formal nations each with their own legal systems. In addition ten
thousand national or regional peoples who identify themselves as
distinct or national each, again possessing their own idea of right
and wrong, good and bad, acceptable and unacceptable. If that isn't
enough there are countless equally valid sub-cultural definitions of
identity, morality, ethics and legitimacy. Which amounts to a situation
that is ungovernable from a uniform minded corporate protectionist
stance. It is as untenable for Multinationals to attempt to control
the mind of the people as it was for governments.

Concepts of limiting the complex, mind-boggling picture of a huge
world of diversity and infinite permutations are silly, infantile
creations of monopolist minded bureaucrats. Either that or the
largely onanistic fantasies of Trademark lawyers and Ad agency style
marketers. It ain't gonna work and the sooner we derail such
delusionary thought processes the better we will be able to handle
an internet and cultural future of several billion persons of endless
variety and complexity.

We will require hundreds of thousands of domain names, unlimited IP
address space, a transparent and largely invisible Internet technical
infrastructure and a highly decentralised and supremely democratic
Internet governance structure to handle this amount of people. Several
billion people... maybe even all of humanity will utilise the Internet
in the decades ahead. Playing control freak games in such an environment
is as futile as it is harmful. There will be rules and regulations of
the most fundamental variety. Specifics, however, going down to which
names we may or may not use, will be as harmful to us all as they will
be hopeless. imagine two billion people. Imagine telling them what they
can or cannot say. Absurd.

These are my comments to the demented and misguided denizens of WIPO.
They are made in the interests of the larger netizenry and the even
more important number of average citizens as yet to enter the Internet
era. It is the interests of "We the people" that must and will
inevitably
dominate this process. After all, from the naked start as babies and
once
it's all said and done we are just people one and all. Everything else
comes and goes... we remain. In that light let us proceed.

Bob Allisat
September 18th, 1998

 -- Posted automatically from Process Web site