DAVID POST (ICANNWatch)
Interview by PuntoNet

1) Can you tell us in few words what your organization is?

ICANNWatch.org was started by Michael Froomkin (University of Miami), David Farber (Univ. of Pennsylvania) and myself, just to serve as an independent source of information and commentary/opinions about ICANN's activities.

2) Usually some people thinks ICANN's policy could affect free speech on the Net and no-commerce organizations if it favours trademarks interests, or it could lead to a generalized cyber-squatting with lot of disputes if it wont save trademarks' interests. Isn't it possible a third way of acting? We mean, what's your opinion about the possibility of balancing those two interests? Could they both live in a future Internet or we only have to expect a totally commercial internet?

You're undoubtedly right -- there can and should be a way to balance the interest of trademark holders and, if not 'cybersquatters', at least the community of domain name holders. It's a difficult balance to strike, to be sure, and those on the extremes of the issue exert pressure to tilt things in their direction.

3) What about new TLD? Specially, what do you think about .biz? It seems to be a clone of .com, like .coop seems to be a clone of .org. Do you think they are really usefull or not? Do we really need them?

Yes, we need them. Or more to the point: it is not up to us, or to ICANN, or to anyone else to determine what the Net 'needs.' The market will and should determine that. Perhaps .biz or any or all of the other new TLDs will fail; perhaps they will succeed beyond our wildest imagination. The important thing is that nobody gets to 'decide' that on the basis of their personal opinion about what the Net 'needs,' but the community of net users gets the opportunity to see if in fact those
new domains serve a useful function or not.

4) What is your opinion about new at-large elected members?

I really don't have any specific opinion. I know Karl Auerbach pretty well, and I have great respect for him. I'm very hopeful that he and the other at-large members will at the very least provide greater transparency to the ICANN Board's processes by providing the larger net community with information about how the Board is acting, the issues it is deliberating on, etc.

KARL E. PETERS (Ador-Doc)
Interview by PuntoNet

1) Can you tell us in few words what your organization is?

Association for Domain Owner's Rights / Domain Owner's Constituency (ADOR-DOC.ORG) is a private organization dedicated to finding and implementing the best possible means of protecting individual rights on the internet in this era of ever encroaching corporate interests through such things as the WIPO and ICANN's UDRP. Along with this Legacy Root front, we are also actively involved in supporting the efforts of completely private root systems so as to provide a robust and viable competition to the Legacy Root of Network Solutions as so heavily controlled by ICANN and its supporters.

2) Usually some people thinks ICANN's policy could affect free speech on the Net and no-commerce organizations if it favours trademarks interests, or it could lead to a generalized cyber-squatting with lot of disputes if it wont save trademarks' interests. Isn't it possible a third way of acting? We mean, what's your opinion about the possibility of balancing those two interests? Could they both live in a future Internet or we only have to expect a totally commercial internet?

In short, I don't believe domains are property, they are addresses that we sign up for and continue to lease until we allow them to lapse. I believe that the entrance of WIPO and trademark interests into the internet naming system wasthe beginning of the end of a free and peaceful internet we had grown toexpect. Please read my Open Letter to the WIPO either from the link at
ADOR-DOC.ORG or from the WIPO site itself. It outlines my problems with the current system and explains my thinking for the only rational escape from this frenzy.

3) What do you think about "sunrise" provision? don't you think it is in great contrast with the fact (often forgotten) that the url is only an address?

I do, as you will see in the answer to the previous question!!!

4) What about new TLD? specially, what do you think about .biz? It seems to be a clone of .com, like .coop seems to be a clone of .org. Do you think they are really usefull or not? Do we really need them?

I believe the new TLDs are a basic right of a free and open internet. They should not require mandates or such from ICANN and in fact there are MANY that have been operating for several years completely outside of and before the creation of ICANN. I do not believe the TLDs should have to meet ICANN's self-centered requirements, however, as the internet functioned just fine
before the ICANN was even formed, in fact much better!!!

It is interesting that you mention Dot.Biz! I am a partner in the Atlantic Root Network, Inc. who has inherited the Dot.Biz TLD from its place in the Open Root Server Consortium (ORSC) where it has been managed since before it was issued by ICANN to another group. It was started in 1995, in fact, and we believe first use is the principle criteria ICANN should use in "giving" rights
to run TLDs. Instead, they tend to go on who gives their directors the best benefits and which choices they believe would cause the least political and legal trouble for them.

5) What is your opinion about new at-large elected members?

While we believe the idea was good in concept, the implementation of the election was very poorly handled. There is MUCH left to be desired by ICANN handling of individual's issues because they really do not want a bottom up organization that would make it difficult to honor the wishes of their Big Business supporters on whom they depend for funding.

The next big issue to watch will be the new vitality and growth of the private root systems.

LEAH GALLEGOS (TLDLobby)
Interview by PuntoNet

1) The name of your organization is self-explanatory enough. Anyway, can you tell us something more about it? What do you mean when you speak about "TLD lobby"?

TLD Lobby is an advocacy for individual domain name holders' rights. Our website is meant to be a place where anyone can go for information regarding issues surrounding ICANN, UDRP, other root zones, legal issues, etc. We strive to provide resource information also, such as lists of government contacts, organizations, other sites which are advocacies. People are beginning to look at TLD Lobby as a place to find out "what's happening" in the domain name and "netizen" world.

We hope to one day be able to form a lobby in Washington, D.C. to protect rights of ordinary net users and domain name holders, since ICANN clearly has no such intentions.

2) Usually some people thinks ICANN's policy could affect free speech on the Net and no-commerce organizations if it favours trademarks interests, or it could lead to a generalized cyber-squatting with lot of disputes if it wont save trademarks' interests. Isn't it possible a third way of acting? We mean, what's your opinion about the possibility of balancing those two interests? Could they both live in a future Internet or we only have to expect a totally commercial internet?

Yes, many people feel that free speech on the internet is very much effected by ICANN's policies, especially the horribly flawed UDRP. Our position is that Trademarks really have no place in the DNS because of the unique address function. In addition, the term "cybersquatting" has been misused and perverted by the media, the public, and the UDRP.

There are very adequate laws in most, if not all, countries to protect Trademarks. In the US, the Lanham Act protects trademarks and defines the responsibility of the Trademark holder as well. It is notable that no true cybersquatter has ever won a case in court. The ICANN/UDRP has far overstepped in this area. Trademarks were instituted to protect consumers, not trademark holders. In addition, TM holders are supposed to police their own marks, and not at the expense of the public or other individuals. According to ICANN/DoC, we are all supposed to provide the means for TM holders to do what the Lanham Act mandated they do for themselves. The result is that individual domain name holders lose rights to privacy, risk being stalked, and give free access to lawyers and process servers. We are supposed to expose our flanks to the mega corporations and sacrifice personal rights to do it. Many countries have fought wars in the name of individual freedom. Are we to lose them in favor of mega corporations and WIPO? I don't think so.

If we have a totally commercial internet, what happens to all the individuals, educators, free thinkers, inventors, non-commercial organizations.... and on an on... They will all be at the mercy of commercial mega powers who strive to literally own the internet, as they do the broadcast and news print industries. The small business, entrepreneur start up, local small organizations will not have a chance in that environment.

Additionally, the internet is not there for just business. It was not begun for that purpose. Those scientific and educational minds must have the freedom to communicate without hindrance from a megalopoly of commercial and trademark interests.

3) What do you think about "sunrise" provision? don't you think it is in great contrast with the fact (often forgotten) that the url is only an address?

First, let me suggest you visit http://sunrise.open- rsc.org

One of my mantras is "repeat after me: It's only an address...It's only an address..." My definition of a domain name is "a mnemonic locator for a numerical address." So, yes, it is a travesty to allow a sunrise provision. The idea of having new TLDs is to open the name space. If a "sunrise" is allowed, it will simply repeat the mess we have now with the TM lobby and take millions of names out of the name space.

In an earlier question, the term "cybersquatter" was used. Generally, the public uses that term to describe an individual who registers names to re-sell. A more accurate term, and the way it was meant to be used is to describe someone who registers a name and attempts to re- sell to a mark holder for an exorbitant price or to prevent the mark holder from using it, or to sell it to a "direct" competitor in order to confuse the public and direct customers to the competitors site. It is not meant to prevent individuals from fair use of a mark for other than the mark holder's class of goods and services or to use for news, criticism or parody.

Now consider what cybersquatting is and also consider the term "hoarding." Look at a company like Procter and Gamble which registered thousands of names simply to prevent others from using them. They then put 300 hundred of them up for auction. These are generic names. How about Verizon registering hundreds of variants of their name to prevent criticism.... What? No more free speech?

Now take a sunrise provision which allows these companies to register their marks, whether they may be generic or not; whether those words (strings) are perfectly legitimate in other context, and prevent millions of those words from being registered by individuals. If that is allowed, the purpose of having the TLDs has just been defeated entirely.

4) What about new TLD? specially, what do you think about .biz? It seems to be a clone of .com, like .coop seems to be a clone of .org. Do you think they are really useful or not? Do we really need them?

I have a vested personal interest in .biz, so I must be clear on this issue from a perspective of business in general. First, it must be understood that the .biz string was created in 1995 and has resolved to the ORSC rootzone since then. It is currently a functioning registry with online web-based registrations, which are rather consistent.

In that light, it is as wrong for ICANN to award .biz to anyone as it is wrong to award .WEB to any other than IOD. Causing a collision anywhere on the internet is ethically wrong. Also, for ICANN to deliberately cause the collision, knowing that the ORSC and other roots carry (as a courtesy without compensation) the ICANN legacy root as a subset to its own, is simply not in the spirit of cooperation on the net. It will have serious repercussions for the registry, the domain name holders and the net in general.

We must remember that the ICANN/IANA root is just one of several, with more popping up all the time. There should be no collisions anywhere, so that all roots can cooperate and carry each others' information for the entire world to use. ICANN is the one which refuses to do this.

As for the legitimacy of root systems other than ICANN, this video clip regarding the ccTLDs' relationship with ICANN tells a lot. One consideration could be looking for "other root service." http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/scripts/rammaker.asp?s=cyber &dir=icann&file=icann-111500&start=10-39-10.

Now, in answer to "do we really need them," yes, in a word. We need as many TLDs as people want to have in order to satisfy the needs of anyone on the net. There is no reason at all for there not to be thousands of TLDs, as long as they are managed well, and have some sort of method for ensuring security of existence to their registrants. Whether they are "clones" of existing TLDs is really immaterial, as long as there are enough of them to satisfy those needs. Some can and should be restricted, but most should be generic, in my opinion. There is a place for restricted TLD, I believe, such as .museum. If there are enough TLDs that restriction will have no effect on the popularity of other gTLDs and the restricted TLDs can define a class of institutions or businesses. Price will also be dictated by the market, so there is no reason to regulate that either. Most importantly, it should not be part of ICANN's function to determine that, or the way a TLD is managed, other than meeting some technical standards which are really minimal.

I do not, however, understand choosing for proof of concept, TLD strings like .coop (chicken.coop?) I don't see it as a clone for org at all. For one thing, its restrictions would not allow just orgs. They would have to be co-operatives. So where do the organizations go? It will be confusing to many, at best. .name? Let's consider joe.smith.name. First, how many joe smiths might there be? Second, what is the rationale behind this TLD that will help the DNS name space? It is simply a restricted TLD for personal names. There is really not one truly open TLD. .WEB would have fulfilled that gap, but the only legitimate registry would have been IOD. What a shame.

Anyone who looks at the "realvideo" archive at the Berkman center will see how the "staff" manipulated the board on TLD choices and that the board members were largely clueless regarding the needs of the internet regarding TLDs. http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/scripts/rammaker.asp?s=cyber &dir=icann&file=icann-111500&start=1-53-00. Those who were realistic and obviously interested in the good of the net for everyone stood up for the principles we will find with Karl Auerbach.

The board members' arguments for and against awarding .WEB to Afilias are in this clip: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/scripts/rammaker.asp?s=cyber &dir=icann&file=icann-111600&start=6-17-00.

We can thank Vint Cerf, Ken Fockler and Linda Wilson for helping to avoid a collision with .WEB and recognizing that an existing, functioning registry must be recognized even if not included in the ICANN/IANA root. They did the right thing in not awarding someone else's TLD to Afilias or any other applicant. The same principle should apply to .BIZ.

5) What is your opinion about new at-large elected members?

I think it will be very interesting to see how the interaction progresses with the new board members. Both Karl Auerbach and Any Mueller-Maguhn are ICANN critics and believe in individual domain name holders rights. I believe all the new members feel that the UDRP needs massive reformation. I think there may be enough voice to make a dent. However, the retention of the 4 board squatters is another breach of faith by ICANN. It does little to mend the rift between that corporation and the at-large community. If ICANN should decide to eliminate the at-large, it will have broken its mandate for a bottom-up organization. Perhaps our best ally will be Karl Auerbach. I suspect as much. He has the courage, technical background and is vocal on important issues. He'll keep the board hopping, I'm sure. In addition, Karl believes in true openness and transparency. I think we'll see more of that now.

This video clip from the public comments portion of the ICANN meetings is an example of Karl Auerbach's fairness and solid background:
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/scripts/rammaker.asp?s=cyber &dir=icann&file=icann-111500&start=10-31-30

.