Comments on the WIPO RFC-3 Internet DNS recommendations.
Reality is a point of view (gjohnson@season.com)
Fri, 19 Mar 1999 04:49:58 -0800 (PST)
Browse by: [ date ][ subject ][ author ]
Next message: Natalie.CHEVALLIER@oami.eu.int: "WIPO RFC-3"
Previous message: ggd@cybercounsel.com: "WIPO RFC-3"
As domain registrant for season.com and concerned resident of
the Internet I find that, after reading WIPO RFC-3 on the
Internet domain name process, some comment and clarification is
needed if a balanced WIPO recommendation is truly desired.
The history of DNS as forwarded in
http://wipo2.wipo.int/process/eng/rfc_3.html">
WIPO RFC-3
is lacking, and in some regard misleading.
Perhaps most critically; .com is not, as hinted at in 5.252.iii
of WIPO RFC-3, "the premier international commercial space".
It is the only available name space, for a number of purposes.
Both when .com was initially introduced as well as today.
Especially for early registrants; .net and .org were originally
intended for specific use, not for unrestricted use as
incorrectly described in 1.6 of WIPO RFC-3.
Statements claiming intellectual property rights that existed
before the Internet ignore the fact that the Internet was not
originally a commercial medium. It is not an exclusively
commercial medium today, and hopefully not an exclusively
commercial medium in the future. Projecting the needs of the
intellectual property community onto the entire Internet at the
expense of other preexisting interests is predatory in intent.
There are also problems with the description of, and
recommendations for, registrar policy. NSI's influence over
the .com registry, in addition to .net and .org, was originally
proclaimed to be a short term transfer of control. By
renewable contract. After obtaining monopoly control NSI has
levied fees, claimed intellectual property rights over a
database that registrants had no choice but submit to, and most
recently begun advertising value added registration services.
The contract has not been reopened to competition and NSI has
been granted anti trust protection by U.S. District Judge
Robert P. Patterson. It should be obvious why registrants and
potential registrars have cause for concern. I didn't notice
any discussion of this historical context in the WIPO RFC-3
document, or any intent to give relief to those .com
registrants that have little choice but to retain their .com
investments and submit to the unregulated whims of a company
eager to grow.
Given the large number of domain name registrations, and their
sizable yearly fees (the reoccuring sum of which is probably
greater than the sum of all the 'cyberpirate' booty described
in 5.256 of WIPO RFC-3), I find it disconcerting that NSI's
predatory actions did not receive detailed comment.
As a stately commentary on process it is sad to see WIPO RFC-3
attempt to replace the lack of a deterrent for domain name
speculation with a lack of a deterrent for domain name
"take-down" harassment and monopoly inspired excesses.
1.2.ii of WIPO RFC-3 hails the Internet as a "popular, rather
than elitist, medium." Will WIPO take that description to
heart while trying to claim so much for intellectual property
interests?
Finally, speaking as a citizen of the United States Of America,
I feel the need to express embarrassment. For any individual
or government that looks to us for guidance in implementing
freedom, justice, or balance between personal and commercial
interests the DNS saga falls short of a mark I had hoped our
noble lies would encourage.
-- gjohnson@season.com March 19th, 1999
Next message: Natalie.CHEVALLIER@oami.eu.int: "WIPO RFC-3"
Previous message: ggd@cybercounsel.com: "WIPO RFC-3"