[WSIS CS-Plenary] IPR : Strategic priorities for WGIG

[Enrique A. Chaparro]

On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 09:05:22 +0000
Jonathan Cave <j.a.k.cave at warwick.ac.uk> wrote:

JC> I endorse the position of Vittorio and Milton Mueller regarding IPR.
JC> 
JC> For one thing, domain names are IP - they are encloseable or ownable
JC> bits of intangible property of substantial commercial (and other)
JC> value.
[...snip...]

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.

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).

Consistently with that principle of minimal regulation, I believe
that certain aspects of the Internet may require some form of
`governance':
1) A technical regulations system (standards) conforming the `glue'
   that ensures the interoperability of the network as a whole;
2) An IP adresses assignment system operating in a consistent way
   along the IP packet-routing systems;
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
4) A system for assignment of protocol numbers and other miscellaneous
   identifiers.

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':
5) The responsible and publicly accountable supervision of the DNS root
   servers set;
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.

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".

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:
If domain names are "IP", as you hold: What _kind_ of IP are they?
Trademarks? Copyrights? Geographical denominations? Mask work? 
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)?

(BTW, the domain names/trademarks paradox is akin to other one:
do ccTLDs represent _country names_? :)

I would prefer the WGIG to concentrate its efforts in a narrower
scope:
- Reliability of the Internet
- Alternatives to the current hyerachical DNS system
- Should ICANN be split in several different functional bodies,
dealing with the distinct issues?
- Why does ICANN perform a dispute resolution function that is
beyond its charter and purpose? Should we have an UDRP at all?
And if so, should it be compulsory?
- Privacy issues, within the limited scope of the whois service
- Public participation in governance: methods and mechanisms
- Root servers: how could the RS network be enhanced?
- Why are gTLDs assigned so sparsely, when no technical reasons
exist?

Of course, i would like to see a chapter in WGIG's report with
regard to the perceived harms to efficient Internet governance.
So, it's perfectly legimate to reflect on how isses not belonging
to the field of Internet governance are affecting it, as patents
(standards are the glue of the Internet, patents are harmful for
standards, RAND policies are not enough).

Regards from the Far South,

Enrique

PS: of course, I personally have a lot of other issues in my agenda,
e.g. how "multistakeholder" and "public-private partnerships" belong
to the realm of marketroid fantasy... but I will refrain from making
this message a manifesto ;)
E.

-- 
``Izena duen guzia omen da.''
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mailman-new.greennet.org.uk/pipermail/plenary/attachments/20050129/bede289b/attachment.pgp