. The DNRC seeks to educate Internet Users about the most basic ideas for the Internet: that all communication - personal, political and commercial - needs to be protected; that governance of the Internet should be democratic and represent the broadest group of individuals, small and large ISPs, small and large businesses, and public interest and consumer groups; and that domain name and trademark disputes should recognize the traditional balance of free speech and narrow trademark protection (basically, that the words of language belong to everyone).
Four Basic Principles for a Fair and Open Internet Summarize our Position:
I. The Internet is "the most participatory marketplace of mass speech that this country and indeed the world has yet seen." ACLU v. Reno, 929 F. Supp. 824 (E.D. Pa June 11, 1996), affirmed, US (June 26, 1997). Accordingly, protection of the openness and freedom of this speech must be the primary priority of any policy dealing with the Internet or Internet issues.
II. No Internet policy should prevent individuals or businesses from using their full imagination and creativity to create and label products, services and content for the Internet.
III. Policies for the Internet must affirmatively and expressly set out protections for free speech and open communication as well as intellectual property protections.
IV. Internet policies must protect and promote the development of new Internet products and services by entrepreneurs and small businesses.
If you agree with these principles, contribute. Although we think the number of Internet users who agree with these Principles is the majority, our voices are in the minority in policy debates and discussions.
How might you be affected by inequitable Internet governance and poorly chosen domain name policies?
The story of Network Solutions, Inc., and now the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy shows how companies acting arbitrarily can wind up hurting individuals, small businesses, and entrepreneurs on the Internet.
In 1995 Network Solutions created a Domain Name Dispute Policy which allowed trademark owners to challenge domain name owners, and even suspend domain names, even without proof of a likelihood of confusion or infringement. The Policy was a shock because it allowed basic English words to be dominated by the many existing trademark owners, but not shared by newcomers (who in the non-cyberspace community have every right to use these words). Individuals, small businesses and other organizations rapidly discovered that their registered domain names - usually in the ".com" and ".org" top-level domains - were being taken down. The valuable personal, political and commercial speech of these domain names was then forfeit.
Unfortunately, ICANN has followed close to the same path. Their Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy is biased towards the covetous parties who seek to take domain names from small businesses and individuals. The touchstone of "bad faith" which theoretically must be shown prior to the taking of a domain name, is often found through completely innocent acts of the domain nameholder. Unless this changes, the outlook is not good.
Even worse, the "Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act" is being used as a significant threat against domain name holders. The threat of a 100,000 statutory damage award if "bad faith" is shown is usually enough for most domain name holders to surrender their name.
The reliability of the Internet and the World Wide Web depends upon stable addresses that may well be likened to signposts that rarely ever change. These domain name dispute policies and over-expansion of trademark protection currently threaten that reliability, and the ability of small business and individuals to effectively transact commerce and share personal and political speech using the Internet.
