[governance] .WINE .VIN - who's business is it ?

Fri May 30 10:01:35 EDT 2014

The simplistic interpretation is yours, not mine, Mawaki.

It's funny, when you say this:

>Once your considering authorizing those TLDs, then you're clearly
>inviting the wine industry (in this example), especially those that
>export their products _globally_ to seek ways in which nobody else is
> going to usurp, say, their wine brands, their identities within the wine
>industry, which happen to be attached to geographical indications,
>under the _global_ resource and medium that would be the .WINE TLD.

...you are stuck in the same mentality as the trademark maximalists of 1998. You think that domain names ARE the same thing as TMs/GIs  and that ICANN should be a global TM/GI regulator. You do not understand the distinction between allocating unique identifiers with a technical function and ex post regulation of problems pertaining to their semantics. The distinction is clear and it's taken noncommercial interests more than a decade, and tons of political blood, sweat and tears, to establish that distinction, which is important both for free trade and for freedom of expression. You are on the wrong side.

Its depressing to see this important debate clouded by silly regional and personal animosities. Louis Louzin hates ICANN and the US but doesn't seem to understand that nothing makes ICANN more important, more powerful and more unaccountable than giving it the power to impose ex ante regulations on the use of names simply because someone _might_  misuse one. I'd suggest that anyone with sympathy for the GI case review the literature on intermediary liability and regulation through intermediaries and ask yourself why all the civil liberties and rights groups are strongly opposed to that approach. You might also review the chapter on "rights to names" in Ruling the Root, the same issues are all clearly laid out there, it's

I find it amusing that the reborn "progressive" Louis Pouzin, interested in JustNet and the little guy, lets his hatred for the US and ICANN make him side with protectionist economist interests simply because they are European. Let's grow up, folks.

It's also amusing to see Erick admit that the treaty he wants globally enforced hasn't been signed by the world's largest economy. And Erick is a lawyer. Apparently forgot some basic things about jurisdiction and sovereignty. Perhaps some review of law books is required there, too.

From: Mawaki Chango [mailto:kichango at gmail.com]

Another remark about that quote from MM is that I'm afraid things are more complicated than the simplistic divide it seems to suggest between the DNS as global resource and local rules. The trouble is, and perhaps has always been, that names are not numbers.

But first, there is something called global trade, of which USG is a world champion -- and understandably so. Thanks to global trade, many products such as wines are not just local consumption goods. Many such goods are demanded around the world, based on their reputation and some other factors. So this is not just a matter of local rules. Saying that does not mean I'm advocating for sweeping rules universally protecting one country's or one company's trademarks as global fortresses. There are still other rules to be considered, among possible others, off-line rules or principles of trademark law, etc. A wine that is produced in Western Cape which is globally exported with a well established reputation in connection with its geographical provenance is not only subject to Western Cape or South African rules. As a matter of fact, there are many local fine liquors that do not make it to the export list due to a whole stack of international rules and requirements to be met for them to be exported. So those that make it to the export list are subject to rules beyond local ones.

Secondly, as I was saying, names are not numbers. Once we're talking about names, we're sooner or later confronted with things/ strings of characters which (literally) mean a lot to some people, not just as local folklore but also as a global asset. In a sense, at some point TLDs become something of a content. I know we often say ICANN shouldn't be regulating content, but the fact is that because they are names, TLDs may more often than not carry with them the same kind of challenges that relate to contents. Furthermore, once you're talking about names, then you might quickly be talking about identities (as far as human beings are concerned) and the boundaries of those identities may possibly not coincide with local or national boundaries.

As long as there is no .WINE or .VIN, etc. TLD, people may register whatever they want which is available at second level of the DNS (gTLDs and ccTLDs) and countries may content themselves with regulating domain name sale/registration within their borders. Once your considering authorizing those TLDs, then you're clearly inviting the wine industry (in this example), especially those that export their products _globally_ to seek ways in which nobody else is going to usurp, say, their wine brands, their identities within the wine industry, which happen to be attached to geographical indications, under the _global_ resource and medium that would be the .WINE TLD. Would anyone seriously expect otherwise? (And let me quickly add that, as I see it, only within the boundaries of such TLD or any TLD that unambiguously refers to their industry, they may have claims to GIs that define their brand or identity in that industry.)

As I said, I'm not a trademark militant, not even an advocate, to be clear. And I don't think a TLD designating an industry has to be ran necessarily by an entity whose business is in that industry. But industry players are entitled to ask that ground rules be established under that specific industry TLD, which do not mess up with their globally relevant business or products.

In conclusion, names are not numbers. Internet is not for machines but for us the people who attach meaning to signs and names. Names (such as in the DNS) may equate to content, based on what they mean to people and they may encapsulate whole identities. So rules that are going to be made by ICANN about those names (including using them as a TLD, to begin with) are sometimes going to be as challenging as regulating contents, whether we like it or not. Some of these identities may have, even in the geo-physical space, a global scope or at least a scope larger than the local and national scope, in large part thanks to global trade. Therefore, it's clear that issues and questions will arise which, to be resolved, will need other rules or agreements beyond national jurisdiction rules. To my understanding, negotiating some of these new arrangements for the space that the .WINE TLD would open up is what the European Commission is engaged in with ICANN (based on what I have read here.)

Mawaki

On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 3:26 PM, Jefsey <jefsey at jefsey.com<mailto:jefsey at jefsey.com>> wrote:
At 21:57 28/05/2014, Milton L Mueller wrote:

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.

Milton,

I feel that the time is now over for such debates about EC, or anyone else, copying the US in wanting to impose local global regulations. The US executive has removed itself from the loop and left the Internet to its reality of an aggregation of national, sales, regional, trade, local, private VGNs under the legal jurisdiction of the contracting parties, stakehodlers and users.

The business, legal, structural, technical, etc. hysteresis is going to slowly fade away, most probably with some picks of resurgence: RFC 6852 has definitly acknowledged the nature of the modern Internet and paradigm: "We embrace a modern paradigm for standards where the economics of global markets, fueled by technological advancements, drive global deployment of standards regardless of their formal status". These standards without formal status (i.e. by local legal practices) "contribute to the creation of global communities, benefiting humanity". Prior to being politcal, or architectural, the fragmentation of the internet comes by its architectural use influenced by local laws and practices. Because internauts do not necessarily identify themselves as WASPs.

You and I share the same catenet, use the same internet, but do not  intersect much our "loglo.nets" (local virtual global networks).

jfc

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org<mailto: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/20140530/85fb1574/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