Re: [ga] UDRP Questionnaire

[Sandy Harris <sandy@storm.ca>]

Sotiris Sotiropoulos wrote:

> > > > For this, the problem is not defining "domain name" as you seem to
> > > > think. We have a perfectly adequate definition.
> > >
> > > Again, where is it?
> >
> > See the RFC.
> 
> I have read and re-read the Request For Comment.  It is merely a schematic, a
> blueprint, a description, nothing more.  The reason it is a request for comment (as
> Jeff pointed out), is because it's unfinished.

No. Jeff clearly does not knopw what he's talking about. Please do not compound
the errors.

There are historical reasons for the name 'RFC', and several types of RFC (standards
track, informational, experimental, ...). Standards track RFCs progress through
several stages (proposed standard, draft standard, ...). At the end of that, possibly
with some revisions along the way, some of them become Internet Standards.

RFC 1034 became STD 13. The two documents are identical, but STD 13 is an official
Internet Standard. 

> There is no delineation of the fundamental nature of the domain name as a commodity,

because domain names are not fundamentally commodities. Fundamentally, they are
what that RFC defines.
 
> which surely we must all agree it is...

Certainly, among other things, these names have become commodities. I consider that
quite unfortunate, and the cause of many problems. 

> Definiton:  A statement conveying fundamental character.  Description: The act,
> process, or technique of describing.  In this RFC we have clearly an attempt at
> description, but no statement as to the essential nature of the res in question: domain
> names.  Surely, the value of some*thing* is usually a good indication of where claims
> and rights may be an issue?

The RFC is not just 'an attempt at description'. It is the standard that defines
the fundamental technical meaning of domain names. People following that standard
create those names.

Of course, those names have other uses and one could attempt a legal or economic
definition of the term 'domain name'. However, any such attempt would have to be
based on the definition in that RFC.
--
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