[Chapter-delegates] Internet Society 2011 IPR activities - Building a truly open and international dialogue

[Alejandro Pisanty]

Patrick, Rudi,

I think you are getting this at least partly wrong.

The way in which the ISOC-PIR relationship is built, by design and before 
the creation of PIR, is one that creates a signfiicant separation between 
both organizations in operational, business, and policy terms.

This is so in order to allow ISOC great freedom in its views about the 
evolution of the DNS. This structure allows ISOC to have a technically 
solid view, oriented to the growth of an open Internet, without being 
consumed or weighted by caring for the very small portion of the 
domain-name market that is PIR's business.

PIR with .org is well aligned with ISOC's mission (again, by design and 
because the right incentives are in place and good compliance with all 
parties' fiduciary duties is under constant vigilance) and is sustainable 
in time cycles that again do not mark ISOC's positions on the DNS and the 
domain-name market.

We may wish to have stronger or less intrusive, more frequent or less, 
etc. guidance from ISOC, but the characterization must be right, in the 
first place.

We also need to note that the ways members and chapters of ISOC work in 
the domain-name marketplace are extremely varied. Some members - Patrick 
even - are or have been involved in executing or supporting strategies for 
new gTLD proponents. Many are involved in ccTLD management or advising, 
many are attorneys fighting out domain-name disputes, some of the 
organizational members are registries or registrars, and so on. So we 
would have to be extremely prudent in imposing any central views, don't 
you think?

What we do, and have to do more intensely if needed, is to have a more 
lively debate about these issues and extract from that the central 
guidance some of you/us seem to think necessary. But mind you, that won't 
be easy and you know it. As much as Tom, for example, can come out in 
defense of city-denominated-gTLDs, we will find principled advocates of 
the opposite, those of us who question the scalability of that model, the 
difficulties of resolving conflicts about some of the city names, etc., 
and also further out those who are opposed to any growth or 
officialization of geographical denominations in the DNS.

So, on with the debates, esp. if there's something to be said or learned 
that is not already out there in the ICANN and other fora.

Yours,

Alejandro Pisanty

.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . .  .  .  .  .  .
      Dr. Alejandro Pisanty
UNAM, Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico

Tels. +52-(1)-55-5105-6044, +52-(1)-55-5418-3732

* Mi blog/My blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com
* LinkedIn profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty
* Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty
* Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614

* Ven a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org.mx, ISOC http://www.isoc.org
*Participa en ICANN, http://www.icann.org
.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .


On Sat, 22 Jan 2011, Rudi Vansnick wrote:

> Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2011 11:09:58 +0100
> From: Rudi Vansnick <rudi.vansnick at isoc.be>
> To: Patrick Vande Walle <patrick at vande-walle.eu>
> Cc: ISOC Delegates Chapter <chapter-delegates at elists.isoc.org>
> Subject: Re: [Chapter-delegates] Internet Society 2011 IPR activities	-
>     	Building a truly open and international dialogue
> 
>
> Op 22-jan-2011 3, om 10:59 heeft Patrick Vande Walle het volgende geschreven:
>
>>
>> On 22 Jan 2011, at 05:36, Thomas Lowenhaupt wrote:
>>
>>> I think I heard at ICANN Cartagena that ISOC is precluded from advocating for new TLDs as part of its charter or its funding agreements.  I might be mistaken, but someone from ISOC said they'd look into any such prohibitions. I looked over the ISOC sight and     was unable to find anything on this.
>>
>> If that is the case, we have  problem. On the one hand, chapters go out and express positions that HQ cannot/will not support. It seems that HQ needs to shut up more often than not because it needs PIR money. Not sure this is economic censorsorhip or some kind of blackmail, but anyway ISOC HQ is prevented to express positions on certain issues.
>>
>> Should the chapters shut up to protect HQ's financial interests ?  Frankly, this is uncomfortable for both sides. The deafening silence from ISOC on the new gTLD TLM issues are an embarassment to chapters,
>> and the positions of the chapters are an embarassment to ISOC.  Are we growing apart ?
>>
>>> And Eric, be careful not to generalize about TLDs. City-TLDs developed as public interest digital infrastructure should not be considered a significant concern to IP stakeholders.  See the report from the IGF Vilnius entitled City-TLD Governance and Best Practices for more on this.
>>
>> Any way, even within the traditional trademark business, TM owners are expected to take actions to protect their TM. Defensive registrations are part of that. Why these guys want a different more favourable in the TLD environment that they get elsewhere is
>>
>> RFC 1591, on which the whole ICANN circus is based, makes it clear that this is outside the scope of DNS administration. Again, one would expect ISOC, as the keeper of the RFC orthodoxy, to remind this to all parties.
>> 4. Rights to Names
>>
>>    1) Names and Trademarks
>>
>>       In case of a dispute between domain name registrants as to the
>>       rights to a particular name, the registration authority shall have
>>       no role or responsibility other than to provide the contact
>>       information to both parties.
>>
>>       The registration of a domain name does not have any Trademark
>>       status.  It is up to the requestor to be sure he is not violating
>>       anyone else's Trademark.
>>
>> Patrick
> I fully agree with Patrick's statement. TM are already a privilege a citizen can not dispose of. And as stated, DNS has no legal rights to judge ownership of an intellectual property. If so, it's clear that a citizen could also claim ownership of his/her intellectual property being the content published on his/her website.
>
> Rudi Vansnick
>
>
>