Re: [ga] [DNDEF] Analysis of "Domain Definition Poll" - Part I. #9

[Eric Dierker <ERIC@HI-TEK.COM>]

Please address this under the Number nine for those of us trying to keep track.
thank you for getting a head start on this issue so it doesn't get lost at the end.

Sotiropoulos wrote:

> Domain Name Definition Poll
>
> I have taken the time to form an analysis of the results
> from the "Domain Name Definition Poll" I conducted from
> the period of Survey Start on 1/13/01 10:01:17 AM
> through to survey End on 1/15/01 5:44 PM.  This `report'
> should not be considered hermeneutically exhaustive, and is
> open to suggestions.
>
> Total participation number in the poll was 25 respondents, this represents
> roughly 18% of the listed participants on the WG-Review.  This of course, assuming
> that nobody voted twice, as it was an `insecure' poll, and that all of the
> respondents were in fact members of the WG.  However, I
> am inclined to state that I consider the poll results as a fairly
> accurate (caveat) representation of many of the ideas and positions
> expressed in WG-Review deliberations.
>
> My analysis of the "Domain Name Definition Poll" will be presented
> in three parts, each corresponding to three sets of the total of 9 questions
> which
> appeared on the above referenced poll.
>
> This segment constitutes Part I:
>
> In answer to the question: 1.  Are Domain Names property or a service?
>
> 52.00% (13 respondents) considered them to be property.  Of course,
> this leaves the issue of *whose* property, completely unanswered.
>
> 8.00% (2 respondents) considered them to be a service.  The nature of the
> service itself was not indicated in the question, nor its ultimate provider
> established.  The relative unpopularity of this response may have something
> to do with the relative popularity of the very next result.  (Perhaps the
> exclusivity of the question played a role.)
>
> 32.00% (8 respondents) indicated that it was both; a service and property.
> This response serves to undeniably establish and underscore the magnitude
> of the domain name definition confusion issue.
>
> 8.00% (2 respondents) chose the "Don't Know" option as their answer.  As
> any codified definition of the ontological status of domain names is
> completely lacking, I find myself sympathizing with this answer in particular.
>
> Conclusion, although there were respondents who "did not know"
> if domain names were property or a service, a traditional majority (i.e.50+1)
> was established in the position advocating apparently unqualified property
> status.  However, there was a significant proportion of respondents who
> indicated that domain names were of a hybrid nature; partaking of both
> property and service status. The implications of this latter response are
> unclear as the question was much too generally phrased and further data is
> not currently available.
>
> In answer to the question: 2. Should the issue of trademarks and geographic
> indications be conflated with Domain names?
>
> 16.00% (4 respondents) considered that domain names should be conflated
> with trademark issues.  Of course, what is unclear (due to the general nature
> of the question) is the degree of any such conflation, and its conditions. The
> currently available data is not sufficient to base any conjectures in this
> regard.
>
> 52.00% (13 respondents) indicated that domain names should not be
> conflated with trademarks and/or geographic indications.  The similarity in
> number of respondents between the result for this question, and the
> equivalent result in question 1 (above) [i.e. in support of considering them to
> be property] suggests two things:
> First, that although domains were considered to be property, they were not
> (presumablybut not necessarily by the same people) considered to be
> trademark-type property by a traditional majority result. (i.e. 50+1 votes)
> Second, it leaves open the questions of what type of property (if that's what
> they are) domain names should be considered to be, as well as the issue of
> `ownership'.
>
> 16.00% (4 respondents) indicated that domain names should sometimes be
> conflated with trademarks/geography.  This indicates that applying
> trademark law in some, but not other instances, was a relatively unpopular
> option in this poll.
>
> 8.00% (2 respondents) chose the "Don't Know" option, indicating further
> confusion regarding the ultimate or conditional status of domain names.
>
> 8.00% (2 respondents) chose the "Other" option.  If anybody on or about the
> WG *volunteers* the fee for the "comments" results of this unofficial,
> insecure poll, I would be happy to comply in presenting any input not
> currently available.
>
> Conclusion:  A traditional majority (50+1) of the respondents expressed the
> opinion that domain names should not be conflated with
> trademarks/geography.  Since the nature of the question is exclusive, this
> result would appear to represent a fixed opinion (with no apparent
> conditions for its application) decidedly against any conflation between
> domains/trademarks/geography.
>
> In response to the question: 3. If  Domain Names are considered eqivalent
> to trademarks or geographic indications, does this make them property?
>
> 64.00% (16 respondents) in other words, a strong majority (just under 2/3),
> indicated that if domain names were considered the eqivalents of
> trademarks, that they did in fact constitute "property" of some kind.
>
> 12.00% (3 respondents) indicated that domains did not constitute property
> despite the conflation with trademarks.
>
> 16.00% (4 respondents) indicated that domains were sometimes property,
> and sometimes not, when conflated with trademarks.  This response is
> interesting in that the qualifications and conditions for property status as a
> trademark eqivalent are not outlined, at least with respect
> to the simple numbers and without additional data.  Thus I can only comment
> on what is readily available.
>
> 8.00% (2 respondents) chose the "Don't Know" option.
>
> Conclusion:  A large percentage of respondents believe that conflation of
> domain names with trademarks raises a property status issue. This is
> especially clear if we combine those who feel this unreservedly (64.00%),
> and those who indicated that it is conditional (16.00%),  for a total of 80.00%.
> I believe these findings indicate a real need for intensive discussion on the
> definition of domain names.
>
> I would appreciate any comments, corrections, or points of dissension with
> respect to the above analysis of my findings.
>
> Sotiris Sotiropoulos
>           Hermes Network, Inc.
>
> Sotiris Sotiropoulos
>           Hermes Network, Inc.
>
> Sotiris Sotiropoulos
>           Hermes Network, Inc.
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

--
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