Civil Society Statement on GAC Sub-Group's Proposal on "Geographic Names" in Top Level Domain Names
Timothe Litt
litt at ACM.ORG
Wed Dec 31 08:09:26 EET 2014
I think you're conflating my comments with another thread.
I'm not suggesting a trip down the Public Interest rabbit hole.
Rather, as an individual domain name holder, I'd simply like to see
individual domain name holders' have rights to their names under
ICANN policy, defined in such a way as to be enforcible under
relevant law. (Or change the laws...a bigger task.) At present, the
playing surface is nearly vertical - trademark holders and organizations
anchored at the top, individual domain name holders (barely acknowledged) at
the bottom. See my previous follow-up post for an expanded discussion,
in a separate thread.
===
I have no objection to a 'domain name is/is not' list. Although I think
that's orthogonal to my comments, it would be useful - if we can agree
on the list.
Frankly, I think everyone involved (including this group) has
gone overboard in overloading domain name semantics. They're just a
name for an (ip) address (or set of addresses) that *humans find easier to**
**remember* and that *allow the address(es) for a service to change*
without
invalidating the name. The latter is good for both automatons and humans.
People need to be able to *obtain names that they like*, and *maintain
control**
**of the name* once *assigned*.
Everything else is unnecessary (but very human, and real)
distraction/complication.
That includes 'human rights', 'freedom of expression', 'cultural
sensitivity', 'geographic
names', 'trademarks', 'monetization of the DNS', and all the other
hot-button issues.
Take a deep breath, step back and take a reality check.
As the Saudi example and others that I've cited show, attempting to
regulate valid
names runs into a morass of cultural issues that can't be resolved.
Attempts to do
so will consume endless energy, and are ultimately doomed to failure in
the trans-
national, world-wide, cross-cultural internet.
I fall back to a simple axiom (with apologies to K&R): "*Be tolerant in
the names that**
**you accept, and as strict as you like in those that you generate.* "
If people pick names
that offend you, don't use them/do business with them. Those people
will get the
message; people who want you to use their services will take care not to
offend you.
It's no different from picking a business name, or the name for a
child. If you call your
hotel 'The Certain Deathtrap for Penguins', you're unlikely to have
Penguins for guests.
If you call your child 'Mohamed the True Prophet' in Tehran, he may have
a short life;
though the same name in San Francisco would offend some, but be protected.
Should trademark holders have priority in obtaining their trademarks as
names?
Sure - *when individual domain name holders have priority in obtaining
their*
family names, pet's names, boat's names, etc... Oh, that's unworkable?
Well, so
is trademark priority for most holders - 'yellow sled' is probably a
trademark of
small business in multiple countries, but only one can be
yellowsled.transport.
Fine for big business, international non-profits. But the little guy? Nope.
And if you think that's weird, from an e-mail received this morning(1):
> © 2014 United Parcel Service of America, Inc. UPS, the UPS brandmark, and
> *the color brown are trademarks* of United Parcel Service of America,
> Inc.
> All rights reserved.
Finally, all this*focus on the domain name's overloaded semantics is
really **a tempest**
**in a teacup*. Much more significant is what *content *is served by
the system(s) behind the
name. I'm much more concerned with a system that distributes malware
than whether it's
named 'Jesus', 'Mohamed', or 'Charles'. Oddly enough, I'm a strong
supporter of Intellectual
Property (including trademark) rights, which should be enforced where
they count - on
*content*, not names. It doesn't matter if your website is served by
'pinksquare.org'. However,
if the content of the website solicits funds fraudulently (e.g. by
misrepresenting itself as
collecting for the owner of the PinkSquare trademark), that *content *is
actionable. And yes,
revoking ownership of the name may be a suitable remedy. But if the
website's content
is not impersonating the PinkSquare organization, and if it has a
prominent disclaimer
('this website is not associated with PinkSquare(tm)...'), there's no
reason to get excited.
And the really good news is that *regulating content has absolutely
nothing to do with**
**ICANN*!
However, this should be another thread...
(1) US TM reg # appears to be 2131693 for trucks; see
http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4802:4te38m.8.26 and
others (for uniforms, caps, etc), available at
http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=toc&state=4802%3A4te38m.1.1&p_search=searchss&p_L=50&BackReference=6&p_plural=yes&p_s_PARA1=&p_tagrepl~%3A=PARA1%24LD&expr=PARA1+AND+PARA2&p_s_PARA2=&p_tagrepl~%3A=PARA2%24COMB&p_op_ALL=AND&a_default=search&a_search=Submit+Query&a_search=Submit+Query
<http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=toc&state=4802%3A4te38m.1.1&p_search=searchss&p_L=50&BackReference=6&p_plural=yes&p_s_PARA1=&p_tagrepl%7E%3A=PARA1%24LD&expr=PARA1+AND+PARA2&p_s_PARA2=&p_tagrepl%7E%3A=PARA2%24COMB&p_op_ALL=AND&a_default=search&a_search=Submit+Query&a_search=Submit+Query>
Timothe Litt
ACM Distinguished Engineer
--------------------------
This communication may not represent the ACM or my employer's views,
if any, on the matters discussed.
This communication may not represent my employer's views,
if any, on the matters discussed.
On 30-Dec-14 09:49, Nicolas Adam wrote:
> <html>
> <head>
> <meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
> http-equiv="Content-Type">
> </head>
> <body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
> It'd be probably more useful to have a definition of nice things
> that a domain name is (that is, nice things that a domain name ought
> to be, but that we conveniently confuse with nice things that a
> domain name is in our definition) than to have a definition of the
> PI (although this was very constructive and I support the work on PI
> framing). This would be more workable than the latter also, would
> probably have more tooth and would be more difficult to oppose if
> well crafted (it's hard to muster a sustained opposition to the
> apple pie for example).<br>
> <br>
> For instance, domain names are <br>
> <ul>
> <li><br>
> </li>
> <li>an alphanumeric string with meaning<br>
> </li>
> <li>endlessly creative, their meaning is non-rival (you can always
> come up with another string that will mean the same)</li>
> <li>gateways by which Internet innovation reaches us<br>
> </li>
> <li>levelers of the Internet ecosystem's field and enablers of
> fair competition</li>
> <li>our roadmap to the open internet they are reachable and
> uncensorable</li>
> <li><br>
> </li>
> </ul>
> That kind of approach would be more rights-based. I don't know if
> this is an interesting idea let alone a relevant one, but ... I have
> my fingers connected directly with my brain with no filter this
> morning so I'm throwing this out there. The definition points above
> are absolutely lacking but they convey the idea.<br>
> <br>
> Nicolas<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 29/12/2014 5:25 PM, Timothe Litt
> wrote:<br>
> </div>
> <blockquote cite="mid:54A1D4D6.1020805 at acm.org" type="cite"><br>
> But one of these days it would be nice to change the conversation
> to include how to create and protect the rights of non-corporate
> domain name holders. </blockquote>
> <br>
> </body>
> </html>
>
> </body>
> </html>
> </html>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20141231/c75c16ae/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 4942 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20141231/c75c16ae/attachment.bin>
More information about the Ncsg-discuss
mailing list