Re: [ga] Bulk WHOIS Data Issue

[Eric Dierker <eric@hi-tek.com>]

When Sotiris is right he is usually right;-}

Apples and oranges are only helpful to compare when you realize you are not 
trying to derive certainty but only trying to broaden the curb of 
understanding.

Some people think the Intellectual property rights in Trademarks are a 
certain type of deal and they are not.  Others forget that the reason for 
having such protectionism on trademarks is a very solid premise of 
protecting those who risk by trying.

Domain Names are simply what a contract says they are -- whatever that is.

In another two too three years we will have enough hisotry to act with more 
certainty until then we must remain vigilante that no one interest takes 
control as would appear to be the case now with gTLDs.

Sincerely,
Eric 
> 
> George Kirikos wrote:
> 
>><big snip> :-)
>>
>>
>>Reading through even more posts, people seem to be struggling for
>>metaphors. The telephone example tends to be overused. If we look at
>>the example in trademark registries, there's sufficient "whois" data
>>for a trademark to be able to serve someone. Individuals, companies,
>>and other entities register trademarks, without some of the personal
>>safety issues that freaks out some individuals. Trademarks represent
>>division of a public resource/namespace, like domain names. 
>>
> Not quite.  I agree with much of what you wrote in your "audacious 
> post", but trademarks are not "like domain names" as you say here. 
> Trademark interests have been granted a de facto formal [and dare I say
>  "moral"] precedence of claim over mere "registrants" or
> "cybersquatters"  [as registrants sometimes get _libeled_].  The
> trademark interests'  abuse of process is staggering to consider when
> viewed through a wider  lense.  
> 
> You want an economic argument (leaving aside the privacy issue for a 
> moment), let us consider the very nature of ICANN's heretofore
> technical  coordination role, its benefits and costs.  What have they
> coordinated,  what has it cost, and who has benefited?   As we all
> know, the scarcity  of domain names is artificial.    Their
> "coordination" has not had  anything to do with anything of a strictly
> "technical" nature unless we  mean the artifical scarcity of dn
> suffixes.  The ICANN's entire role  to-date has been on the policy side
> of "technically coordinating" the  DNS. Through the sheer technicality
> of their jargon most people can't be  bothered to even attempt to
> understand what the true role of ICANN has  been heretofore vis a vis
> the Internet as a whole.  What is the benefit  in the artificial
> scarcity of domain name suffixes? Who benefits from  this scarcity? 
> What is the cost of such protectionism?  Who pays for it  all?  
> 
> The ICANN as regulator of this market has taken on a certain 
> extra/supralegal dimension of nebulous unaccountability which imposes 
> upon what should be a free and unfettered medium of information flow
> and  exchange.  Can you estimate what their imposition has cost the
> Markets  of the World?
> 
>>Similarly, 
>>in the case of licensing of radio or TV stations -- it's made easy for
>>the public to look up the owner of that frequency/station.
>>Registrations of corporations, personal businesses, etc. are another
>>metaphor. Some folks seemed to have attempted to make the domain itself
>>a unique legal entity unto itself, and that argument is deeply flawed.
>>One can't "serve" a domain or find it responsible for itself.
>>
> I, for one, agreed with your comments on the Technical Contact becoming
>  the de facto legal contact and only required listing in the WHOIS.
> 
> Sincerely,
> 
> 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


http://www.Hi-Tek.com
Reality in a Digital World

The information transmitted in this e-mail is intended for the person or
entity to which it is addressed, and may contain confidential and/or
privileged material.  Any review, retransmission or other use of, or
taking any action in reliance upon this information by persons or
entities other than the intended recipient is strictly prohibited.  If
you receive this e-mail in error, please contact the sender and delete
this material from any system.  Thank you!


--
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