Re: [ga] DNSO ICANN board member

[Jefsey Morfin <jefsey@wanadoo.fr>]

Jamie,
I thank you for your responses. I certainly renew my support to you 
(right now my PIN does not work - has someone else the same problem?)

>   From a perspective of national law in most developed countries, I
>think we are past the point where there is a serious effort to assert
>that domain names have nothing to do with trademarks.

The UDRP 'contract' is a selfcontained document. It defines the words 
and concepts it is about (it could not work otherwise). It does not define 
what a domain name is: IMHO it cannot rule about DNs.

I work in this area for 25 years, I own 4000 DNs, I initiated the X121 
numbering plan of 30 countries, I develop some variations of the DNS, 
I head two comities for new TLDs, and I still do not know what a domain 
name is, technically, gramatically, legally. I am only sure it is not what
most of the WIPO arbitrators think it is. 

BTW, I feel the real problem of the DNSO is not its constituancies, 
but that its constituancies correspond to different interests/cultures
understanding DNs in different ways. 

>> - is the address semantic part for IP or part of free speech? I explain: is
>> there a difference for you between http://support.france.ibm.com (Saxon
>> semantic) and http://support.ibm-france.com (Latin semantic)
>
>    I don't understand the point you are making here.  However, in my
>opinion, domain names are speech, and the public has legitimate
>interests in using domains names for speech.

1)  you make clear that domain names belong to the freedom of speech.
     So I have the right to call you any name I want (Jamie, IBM, Koreinthion, 
     ...). But you have not the right to *publish* that you want to be called 
    "MicroSoft" (should you have that strange idea). 

2)  semantic belongs to the international domain names issue as well as
     characater sets, semantic has an equal importance in string 
     memorization. In Chinese charcaters ars semantic. One of the problem
     of cybersquatting is the lack of semantic concern (hey register names 
     which share the semantic of a comemrcial concept), UDRP uses 
     rules of semantic not used at registration time. The .SYS WS's
     ".sys" TLD is based upon a simple semantic: registrants do not 
     register domain names but formats of domain names (not ibm-france.sys, 
     ibm-uk.sys, but ibm-*.sys). Rate structure is totaly different. IP issues 
     too.

3)  there are several semantics on the net to obtain IP addresses:
     -  direct IP address   http://123.123.32.21
     -  domain names http://icann.org
     -  real names : microsoft
     -  search engines: yahoo.com then "ford car" which may eventually
        lead you to the Renault site.
     -  http://anyhing.anything.wiz by the .WiZ Web Semantic association.
     In most of them domain names have disapeared and are only kept as
     CNAMES.

>I wish I knew more about where things are going in terms of IP numbering
>managment.  I was looking at this page today, trying to appreciate the
>privacy consequences:
>http://www.arin.net/announcements/policy_changes.html

True. But FYI the real issue is the necessary IP addressing plan which may
/will pave the way to Big Brother(s).

>ICANN should let others experiment with different gTLDs.  I think
>restricted TLDs will be interesting, if ICANN premits easy entry to run
>a TLD.  At some point ICANN should give some indication of the number of
>TLDs that the DNS system can support.  

1) I want to introduce two restricted TLDs, managed by beneficiaries, bringing
    innovation and modifying the IP conception of Domain Names.
    Consulted, WIPO did not commented yet. 
    I think they would be better introduced as a DNSO level through commercial 
    comities payng K$50.

2) there is no technical limitation of the number of TLDs.  Would Bill gates
    want to take the web he only has to righfully modify IE to use the
    MS-roots and offer millions of TLDs. I do not use the ICANN root on my PC
    for more than one year.

>I am concerned that ICANN will impose fees on at large voting rights.

I suspected it. Not to really get money but to get dedicated worshipers?
Always the same old tricks.

Best regards.
Jefsey


--
This message was passed to you via the ga-full@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html