[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [interesting-people Home]
Subject: IP: This was our [ Consumer Project on Technology] take on .us
>Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2001 18:32:13 -0400 >From: James Love <love@cptech.org> >Organization: http://www.cptech.org > >To: "Farber, David" <farber@cis.upenn.edu> >Subject: This was our take on .us > > > Manon Anne Ress > Essential Information > P.O. Box 19405 > Washington, DC 20036 > > James Love > Consumer Project on Technology > P.O. Box 19367 > Washington, DC 20036 > > > >July 27, 2001 > >The Honorable Donald L. Evans >Secretary of Commerce >U.S. Department of Commerce >1401 Constitution Avenue, NW >Washington, DC 20230 > >Dear Secretary Evans: > >Essential Information and the Consumer Project on Technology are >Washington, DC-based non-profit organizations founded by Ralph Nader. >Our organizations are involved in a number of projects concerning the >Internet and E-commerce, much of which is documented on the CPTech web >page at http://www.cptech.org. > >We are writing to express our concerns regarding the Department of >Commerce's Request for Quotation (RFQ) [SB1335-01-Q-0740] for services >to establish centralized management and coordination of the .us >top-level domain (usTLD), to propose specific policies regarding the >management of .us, and to join others in requesting an extension of the >July 27, 2001 deadline for applications of the future management of the >.us TLD. > >Today the US national domain, .us, is used almost exclusively for state >and local governments, schools and libraries. It is a resource >rightfully regarded by the Internet community as a national and public >space, rather than simply another profit opportunity for speculators. >However, because it is also a potentially lucrative business, the >re-delegation of .us has attracted those more interested in profits than >the public good. > >We believe the current RFQ poses threats to free speech, as well as >privacy - issues that may not trouble some commercial concerns, but >which do concern the people who use the Internet. > >The ICANN Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) is not appropriate >for .us TLD registrants. Many UDRP panels are international and take >positions that are contrary to US public policy, particularly as it >relates to the US First Amendment, but also with respect to US >traditions in trade mark policy, as they relate, for example, to the use >of generic names. We have outlined a number of such opinions at >http://www.cptech.org/ecom/icann/domaindisputes/ >domaindisputes.html. For example, consider the opinion in >Kwasizabantu.org, where the UDRP panel said: > > "The admitted nature of the use of the domain names ... >includes >alternative views and indeed critical views concerning ... >[KwaSizabantu] and its activities. The Panel holds such activity amounts >to tarnishing the activities associated with the trademark or service >mark "KwaSizabantu" ... Therefore, ... [Rost] does not establish any >rights or legitimate interests ..." > >Certainly in the USA, offering critical views is still considered a >legitimate interest. > >Regarding privacy policies, we ask that the registry for .us develop the >least restrictive privacy methods for protecting copyright interests. >This is quite important, as one expects the expanded .us domain space to >include a much greater scope for personal use, and there is already >significant pressure from the E-commerce sector to strip everyone of >every notion of privacy that one cannot just leave this up to the whims >of the registry. To the degree that the registry is required to provide >information on domain name owners, it should chose the method that does >the least violence to personal privacy. > >Also, there are important policy issues concerning the economics of the >domain space - in particular, how domain name users will be protected >from exorbitant pricing. Another important issue is how to fairly manage >any surpluses that are likely to be available, once .us is rescued from >its incredibly poor current management scheme. > >First of all, it is important to raise our concerns that the government >and ICANN have both deliberately created a false scarcity in domain name >space, to benefit a handful of Internet registries. As you know, the >Internet Top Level Domain (TDL) space is extremely limited, given what >is technologically possible. This is typically justified by a range of >insincere and easily refutable claims that this scarcity is somehow >needed to maintain Internet stability. As everyone is well aware, the >current artificial scarcity has been designed to create rents for the >handful of businesses that control the existing Internet domain name >space. Clearly the one firm that has benefited the most, to the tune >of billions in stock market valuation, is Verisign, which now controls >the registry for .com, .net and .org, while managing other registries. >One major objective of the .us re-delegation would be to ensure that >someone other than Verisign runs, manages and operates .us, so that >there is more competition. > >We would hope that the .us TLD, the official US country code, be managed >by a non-profit Registry that would not have the incentive to charge >high prices for domain names. However, if a profit making firm is given >this resource, the government needs to regulate or limit the prices, or >explain why people are paying a commercial entity large fees to use the >.us domain. These registration fees are real money, and we resent >having to pay high prices for something that the seller does not create >or add value to. > >There may be alternative methods of making this whole system less of a >rip off. For example, the plan could be to have an unlimited number of >second level domains auctioned off, with the proceeds going into a fund, >to be spent according to the wishes of the end user domain name >holders. For example, everyone with a third level domain .us, in this >system, could vote on how the surplus could be spent, in an electronic >referendum, which would be populist, fair, and not subject to the >typical favoritism that so often is associated with ICANN. > >Second, it would also make sense to provide the not-for-profit sector >with some of the second level domains, for particular public uses and >civil society sectors. For example, union.us could go to the unions, >charity.us, lib.us, museum.us or others could be given to umbrella >groups that could manage the pricing and allocation of domains for >relevant constituencies. This would be better than a centralized system >run by some socially clueless technology firm. > > >Sincerely, > > >Manon Ress > > >James Love > >CC: Joseph L. Widdup, NIST > >-- >Manon Anne Ress >mress@essential.org, voice: 1.202.387.8030 >_______________________________________________ >Non-Commercial Top Level Domains mailing list >nc-tlds@lists.essential.org >http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/nc-tlds For archives see: http://www.interesting-people.org/
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [interesting-people Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC