First Level Registry
Expression of Interest--dotLaw
To the ICANN by the non-profit
Juvenile Lawyers Association.
www.JuvenileLaw.net
1.Why a non-profit?
2.Why a legally related non-profit?
3.Why us?
4.Structure and initiation.
5.Alternative structure.
6.Technical expertise.
Introduction
This proposal is in response to the ICANN invitation
to submit preliminary first level domain
name register expressions of interest. The
future ability of ICANN to create first level domain names is a
world natural resource that has vast monetary
value. ICANN doesn’t own that asset; the
countries of the world do, but ICANN controls it. ICANN may
either allow speculators to reap the windfall of that asset or may
direct the realization of the asset toward
benefiting needy populations. We propose
a test; a structure that will be a learning process for future
reference, and that has an enhanced potential to succeed.
1. Why a non-profit?
a. As a test.
i. A dotLaw first level domain should prove
to be a very popular, and profitable, commercial registry, e.g.,
Business.Law.
ii. The present mood of ICANN seems to be
to move slowly to explore various methods of providing registry
services.
iii. This proposal would be a testing ground
to see if adequate services could be
provided by a non-profit organization, in the context of a highly
popular first level domain. In other words, this would be the
BEST place for a non-profit to be successful
at providing registry services, and
the LEAST likely place that a non-profit registry would fail
while developing a process for future non-profit registries to
be successful with.
b. To benefit the community.
i. The purpose of a non-profit running a registry
is to use the funds generated by the
world community’s use of a global resource to return benefits
to the community.
c. To prevent large legal institutions to control
domain registrations.
i. Speaks for itself.
2. Why a legally related non-profit?
a. Legally related non-profits are generally
run by or in conjunction with attorneys.
Within this narrow proposal, that”s a good thing.
b. Attorneys in most nations are trained in
similar manners in similar universities.
They understand the ethical, legal, and business circumstances
that drive each other, and would be the best possible watchdogs
of the dotLaw registry.
c. An especially important aspect to a dot Law
registry is legal ethics. Legal ethics
in the US and Great Britain are structures of precepts that have
evolved over four hundred years as a protection, specifically for
non-lawyers, from abuse in the legal system.
Many countries and US states begin to
train their attorneys in legal ethics in law school and require
continued training for the full extent of attorneys’ careers.
3. Why Us?
a. We are a group of attorneys with very different
backgrounds. Male and female, different
religions, and different national origins.
b. Each of our organizing members has worked
almost exclusively for low-fee payment
by a US state judicial system to provide services to children
and poverty clients, for between ten and twenty years per member.
c. The provision of legal services to children
in our US state is at a crisis point.
No one in the state legislative branch or in the various special
interest groups is happy with the present system, and a change will
happen soon. Many of us agree that the change will not be for the
benefit of the children receiving services.
The root of the problem is funding.
d. We suspect the same is often true across
the US and around the world.
e. We propose that profits from this registry
go to a non-profit organization, preferably
ours, to be used world wide for the competent, ethical
provision of legal services for children.
f. Traditionally children living in poverty
in the US have been provided with legal
services by agencies such as Legal Services. The Federal funding
for such agencies has been cut by 80% since the Reagan Whitehouse.
g. Legal services agencies often maximized the
efficiency of their limited funding by
filing class-action suits on behalf of poverty clients.
Federal funding now prohibits legal services from filing class-action
lawsuits.
h. Our local government is not enthusiastic
about funding poverty level legal services.
i. The ethical use of web domains by attorneys
is a new, and very complex issue. Very
few US states have come to a final, inclusive standard. We know
of no international legal standards. One of our members has studied
legal ethics for 17 years and has sat
on a statewide legal ethics organization
for that time, and has recourse to the best experts in this issue
in our state and perhaps in the US.
4. Structure and initiation
a.We propose a hierarchal structure that would
be available to all attorneys and legal
providers equally. E.g., FosterDunnFrank.London.UK.Law
and DunnFoster.Washington.US.Law and FrankDunn.Calgary.CA.Law.
b.The cost would be a flat $200 per year.
5. Alternative structure
a. As an added, commercial naming structure,
names such as Law.Law or Patents.Law or
Business.Law could be auctioned over a three-month period to
the highest bidder. It is likely bids would go into the tens of
thousands of American dollars. The annual
registry fee could be set at $500.
b. Popular names such as Patent.Law will eventually
be business assets for some law firm,
valued at tens or hundreds of thousands of American dollars
or British pounds or Swiss franks. It would make sense to divert
the payment for those assets to legal
services for children rather than have
the cost of those assets go to intermediary brokers, who profit
only because they are at the right place
at the right time, or know the right people.
c. As an ethical advantage, names such as HaveYouBeenInjured.Law
or Ambulance-Chasers.Law or Sue-Them-Now.Law
might be more tightly regulated.
6.Technical expertise.
a. The technical expertise of our members is
only average. One of us has built a web
server. It works pretty well.
b. We would propose initially farming out the
running of the registry to an existing
registry povider and funding the startup costs by the auction
described above, but would then move toward in-house expertise.
Juvenile Lawyers Association
By Philip Robert James
Phil@Lawyer.com
