[governance] .WINE .VIN - who's business is it ?
Jean-Christophe Nothias
jeanchristophe.nothias at gmail.com
Thu May 29 13:00:06 EDT 2014
Thanks Erick,
Beside and beyond the protection related to its wrong 'geographic views', Milton's assertion contains two interesting ideas to debate.
1/ In short, if I may, Milton suggests: "Should we hesitate between a 'Global DNS coordinator and 192 local DNS regulators', then let's eliminate a global root all together." Though a bit provocative and amusing, I reminds me a bit of the usual argument over the un-fragmented vs balkanized Internet. If we think of the true global root-zone it goes beyond what ICANN considers the global root zone (and the file it maintains and update through the IANA function - not a big file indeed). The ICANN understanding of a global root zone is misguiding, as it does not represent the overall root zone, but just the global root zone under direct US oversight and under scrutiny of its many algos whether the civil or military algorithms, or civil algorithms used by security and defense authorities (NSA, DoD...) . In that sense, ICANN is pretty close to a PTT kind of thing, or more to the point, to a former monopole such as 'Les Pages blanches' and 'Les pages Jaunes', directories until liberalization put them out of domination. With over half a billion in revenues per year, ICANN is a PTT, as it only provides 'phone numbers' within its oversight. When many other 'phone numbers' exist (in this context, we call them IP). So, indeed EC could and should allow other providers of root-zoning. It is already the case with the OPEN ROOT revolution. It brings a lot of good news: it is not local at all but plain global, much more secured than what the ICANN root zoning does, free of data and meta-data monetization, free of the NSA surveillance. So there are indeed some interesting alternatives to the view of a single 'ICANN/global' root zone, when the one offered by ICANN is very limitative, expensive to all and lucrative to a few. And again, it is friendly to domination and abuse.
So there is no point to argue on a 192 local root zone providers/regulators. But indeed there is an urgent need for competition and choice of ruling/rules and of global root zoning. And as we will do so, we will gain room to take care of other issues such as what jfc's issue is in regard to the Internet architecture 'hole' or with the RFC 6852. Once we will have more than one root zoning provider, these discussions will be greatly facilitated.
(PS: "root zoning" is a neologism to express the idea of handling and directing requests at the first level (.xxx.) i.e. managing Domain Name request at the first level.
To be clear, I am part of the people who are now using a different file (root-zone file) to find everything that can be found on the InterNet or should I call it MultiNet. So the ultimate question is: when do we acknowledge the end of the MONONET by ICANN and give to all Internet users the ability to have a choice, a cheaper one, a larger one, an honest one root-zoning provider.
The root-zone provider (handling all .xxx) that I am working with, is not the usual US alternative 8.8.8.8 i.e. Google, as an adjunct to ICANN). My root-zoning provider allows me to go everywhere I want, and is even able to link me to several IP having the same TLD but different sectors/topics of interests. That means that the .WINE extension can have different users/holders/guardians - one issue is solved here! This is done in the same way that I have to explain to my young son that they are 2 lines of buses in Geneva with the same number that are ultimately going to three different final locations.
2/ Milton has another hint: "If they (the EU) want to enforce their _local_ rules, let them regulate sale or consumption of the TLD registrations _within their own country. nothing stops them from doing that, they already have that authority."
Again, Milton suggest that the Europeans are interested by building new Berlin Walls around, or even worse some 'Ligne Maginot'. I do not see anything like this is the European expectations. But again, we are only confronting the idea of having several 'Global Root Zone Providers'. This is doable. And this is not a technical issue. What is a technical issue goes to algorithm as those are not ready to be used outside the ICANN so called 'global root zone'. So we should really consider what the OPEN ROOT is offering to us as a remedy to technical and political issues, related to IG.
Until we accept to think out of the ICANN root zoning, much of the current IG debate will go no further than where the US government and Congress want us to go.
Being a libertarian does not equate rejecting at all costs governments (at least I would defend the democratic ones) and try to feature an Internet Governance that can be run by a few autocrats having found themselves as the legitimate holders of the humanity bien-être.
JC
By the way if you replace 'EC' by 'US' in Milton email you have got an interesting perspective of the present state of IG.
Le 29 mai 2014 à 17:20, Erick Iriarte a écrit :
> Dear Milton
>
> Do you know the: Lisbon – The International System of Appellations of Origin
> http://www.wipo.int/lisbon/es/
>
> And in effect US is not part of this Treaty, but the other countries yes.
>
> In several free trade agreements from US with other countries, they included geographical and
>
> for example
> Peru-USA FTA - 16.2.2. http://www.acuerdoscomerciales.gob.pe/images/stories/eeuu/ingles/Intellectual_Property_Rights.pdf
> "Geographical indications means indications that identify a good as originating in the territory of a Party, or a region or locality in that territory, where a given quality, reputation, or other characteristic of the good is essentially attributable to its geographical origin. Any sign or combination of signs, in any form whatsoever, shall be eligible to be a geographical indication"
>
> I suppose included too in TPPA and TAFTA
>
> So… you are wrong and Christopher is right :)
>
> Erick
>
>
>
> El 29/05/2014, a las 10:00, CW Mail <mail at christopherwilkinson.eu> escribió:
>
>> Dear Milton:
>>
>> Just imagine if your interpretation were to be applied to trademarks in ICANN - !
>> (To be protected only _within their own territory_ )
>>
>> Christopher
>>
>>
>> On 28 May 2014, at 21:57, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:
>>
>>> Actually the NTIA has it right, Wilkinson is wrong, (and let’s leave Crocker and Chehade off of the cc list ;-)
>>> ICANN is a global coordinator; its whole purpose was to avoid having the DNS partitioned into 192 different jurisdictional requirements. If we want ‘local’ laws to regulate DNS let’s eliminate a global root altogether and turn the Internet into the national PTT telephone system. (Oh, it wouldn’t be the internet then, would it?)
>>>
>>> The EC’s idea that it can impose its parochial GI regulations on a global resource is misguided, and an attempt to assert extraterritorial jurisdiction. If they want to enforce their _local_ rules, let them regulate sale or consumption of the TLD registrations _within their own territory_ nothing stops them from doing that, they already have that authority.
>>>
>>> The Strickling letter is exactly on target when it asserts that the EC, and certain applicants for .WINE are engaged in special protectionist negotiations and that those negotiations do not have the consensus support of the GAC, much less the rest of the community.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of CW Mail
>>> Sent: Monday, May 26, 2014 12:17 PM
>>> To: IGC LIST
>>> Cc: Steve Crocker; Fadi Chehade
>>> Subject: Re: [governance] .WINE .VIN - who's business is it ?
>>> Importance: High
>>>
>>> Good afternoon:
>>>
>>> https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/strickling-to-crocker-21may14-en.pdf
>>>
>>> Protection of Geographical Indications by ICANN does not depend on " … GI related obligations in any international legal instrument … " (c.f. Strickling, para 2)
>>>
>>> Rather, it depends on the Articles of Incorporation of ICANN, Article 4:
>>>
>>> 4. The Corporation shall operate for the benefit of the Internet community as a whole, carrying out its activities in conformity with relevant principles of international law and applicable international conventions and local law and, to the extent appropriate and consistent with these Articles and its Bylaws, through open and transparent processes that enable competition and open entry in Internet-related markets. To this effect, the Corporation shall cooperate as appropriate with relevant international organisations.
>>>
>>> That clause was introduced into the ICANN Articles of Incorporation in the 1998-99 negotiations between the White House, Jones Day and the European Commission, precisely to deal with this kind of situation.
>>>
>>> Accordingly, whilst it is normal for public authorities, such as NTIA or, for that matter, the European Commission, to write letters to ICANN, on this occasion, and on that point, NTIA has got it wrong.
>>>
>>> Regards
>>>
>>> Christopher Wilkinson.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>
>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>
>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>> http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
> http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140529/3bc1cac1/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
For all other list information and functions, see:
http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
http://www.igcaucus.org/
Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
More information about the Governance
mailing list