<html>
<body>
<font color="#0000FF">Just a quick comment to correct a too-hasty use of
acronyms on my part.<br><br>
</font>At 03:20 29/01/2005, Enrique A. Chaparro wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 09:05:22
+0000<br>
Jonathan Cave <j.a.k.cave@warwick.ac.uk> wrote:<br><br>
JC> I endorse the position of Vittorio and Milton Mueller regarding
IPR.<br>
JC> <br>
JC> For one thing, domain names are IP - they are encloseable or
ownable<br>
JC> bits of intangible property of substantial commercial (and
other)<br>
JC> value.<br>
[...snip...]<br><br>
Let's try to start from the beginning: What is Internet? A network
carrying (as reliably as possible) IP packets from a source address to a
destination address. Period. So, Internet governance should be limited to
the minimal set necessary to guarantee such reliable transport.<br><br>
In other words, ``The Internet, a loosely-organized international
collaboration of autonomous, interconnected networks, supports
host-to-host communication through voluntary adherence to open protocols
and procedures defined by Internet Standards.'' (RFC-2026).<br><br>
Consistently with that principle of minimal regulation, I believe that
certain aspects of the Internet may require some form of
`governance':<br>
1) A technical regulations system (standards) conforming the `glue' that
ensures the interoperability of the network as a whole;<br>
2) An IP adresses assignment system operating in a consistent way along
the IP packet-routing systems;<br>
3) A traffic exchange system between carriers/ISPs providing to the end
users a reasonable assurance that the trafic flows will get the specified
levels of service; and<br>
4) A system for assignment of protocol numbers and other miscellaneous
identifiers.<br><br>
In the current state of affairs, i.e., taking into consideration the
existence of a strong hierachical domain name system depending on the
root servers, other two aspects might require `governance':<br>
5) The responsible and publicly accountable supervision of the DNS root
servers set;<br>
6) The management of the DNS root zone file, including its preparation
and dissemination among the root servers, and the development and
application of polices for the incorporation of new TLDs to the root
zone.<br><br>
A good number of the issues raised here belong to "real world"
governance, and even if I completely agree with the posture that they
deserve an open discussion with broad participation, I do not agree with
the idea that those issues belong to the field of "Internet
governance".</blockquote><br>
<font color="#0000FF">A quick remark - in telecom regulation, the debate
between the engineers - who favour only technical regulation - and the
economists - who look at structure and conduct as determinants of
performance - is long-standing and not to be resolved here. But the
distinction between 'real world' governance of conduct relating to the
Internet and Internet governance escapes me, I'm afraid.<br><br>
</font><blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">Getting deep into issues
that do not belong to the strict field of IG is prone to cause more harm
than good. Let me take one of your assertions as an example:<br>
If domain names are "IP", as you hold: What _kind_ of IP are
they? Trademarks? Copyrights? Geographical denominations? Mask
work?</blockquote><br>
<font color="#0000FF">Here's the bad acronym use. 'IP' could mean
'industrial property' (all the examples mentioned except copyright) or
'intellectual property.' I meant the latter. More: I meant to indicate
that domain names are intellectual property (they are intangible
intellectual products that can be owned and transferred) independently of
how the property <i>rights</i> are enshrined in law. It seems to me (and,
it seems to you) a vital part of the discussion to consider how they
<i>should</i> be defined and protected - and what the likely impact of
treating them in different ways might be. I think we also agree - as I
tried very hard to argue - that matching these things to existing bits of
law is a pointless exercise. Unless we are prepared to ask why these
things should be protected we are unlikely to devise protection that is
worthwhile. For instance...<br><br>
</font><blockquote type=cite class=cite cite=""> Because if they are
trademarks, then they should have to be assigned forever, and all the
current domain registration procedures would need to be changed. And what
about names that some national legislations admit to be appropriated as
trademarks, while other legislations don't (as common
nouns)?</blockquote><br>
<font color="#0000FF">I believe that in most jurisdictions trademarks
last 10 years in the first instance. But I agree that trademark is a
blunt instrument. My point is simpler: none of the existing legal
instruments meets the <i>combined</i> challenge of technology and
(economic) conduct. The purely administrative approach has failed the
test of neutrality. Some form of rethink is needed. I remember when WIPO
and WTO were arguing this issue in relation to copyright on the Internet.
A strong faction felt that the solution lay in interpretation of existing
law - an equally strong faction felt that a rethink was needed.<br><br>
</font><blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">(BTW, the domain
names/trademarks paradox is akin to other one: do ccTLDs represent
_country names_? :)</blockquote><br>
<font color="#0000FF">Good point, esp. because (at least from the UK
perspective) my understanding (and <b>I am not a lawyer</b>) it is not
possible to trademark:
<ul>
<li>signs that cannot be graphically represented or are not 'capable of
distinguishing';
<li>trade marks that aren't distinctive;
<li>trade marks that only indicate the kind, quality, value, geography or
other such characteristics of goods or services;
<li>trade marks that are recognised signs which are customary in trade;
and specially protected emblems.
</ul>Also - and this relates to the side-discussion on spam insofar as it
includes overt forms of 'phishing' like cybersquatting - certain kinds of
marks may be <i>relatively </i>refused registration, including those
identical or similar to earlier marks registered for identical or similar
goods or services which are likely to confuse the public. <br><br>
But my main point was to stress that I regard domain names as
intellectual property (with lower-case 'i' and 'p') and that I think
behaviour within technical regulation and/or 'pure' administration has
consequences that critically affect internet governance (with upper- or
lower-case 'I' and 'G').<br><br>
rest snipped for brevity....<br><br>
Cheers,<br><br>
Jonathan<br><br>
</font></body>
</html>