<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [ga] FYI: WLS Vote of Transfers Task Force
So why do you use a .net domain name, John?
Go play with your dns network, it has nothing to do with this forum.
Friday, July 26, 2002, 12:54:09 PM, John Palmer wrote:
> So tell me then, Why is it right for someone to have a root-level monopoly on selling a service?
> What right does ICANN have to define the business models of registrars and TLD holders?
> (hint: they dont).
> What right do they have to claim they are any kind of authority? (hint: none - they have no power).
> What real authority do they have? (hint: none, unless people continue to be sheep and point
> their ISP resolvers or individual machines at ICANN/USG roots).
> They are a corrupt monopoly. Plain and simple.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "William X Walsh" <william@wxsoft.info>
> To: "todd glassey" <todd.glassey@worldnet.att.net>
> Cc: "Dan Steinberg" <synthesis@videotron.ca>; "DNSO General Assembly" <ga@dnso.org>; "Alexander Svensson" <alexander@svensson.de>
> Sent: Friday, July 26, 2002 2:23 PM
> Subject: Re: [ga] FYI: WLS Vote of Transfers Task Force
>>
>> Get it through your head, Todd.
>>
>> Let me spell it out very slowly for you:
>>
>> D-o-m-a-i-n n-a-m-e-s a-r-e n-o-t a-u-t-o-m-a-t-i-c-a-l-l-y
>> i-n-t-e-l-l-e-c-t-u-a-l p-r-o-p-e-r-t-y.
>>
>> Do you understand that now, Todd?
>>
>> A domain name is a service, paid for, for a fixed period of time. Let
>> it lapse, and someone can register it and use it, and can do without
>> necessarily violating your IP rights. They MAY use it in a fashion
>> that violates your IP rights, but it is not the requirement of the
>> domain name system to protect your IP rights for you.
>>
>> Do you need it explained to you yet again, Todd? How many times have
>> you had this explained to you by myself and others?
>>
>> Friday, July 26, 2002, 11:34:15 AM, todd glassey wrote:
>>
>>
>> > ----- Original Message -----
>> > From: "Dan Steinberg" <synthesis@videotron.ca>
>> > To: "todd glassey" <todd.glassey@worldnet.att.net>
>> > Cc: "DNSO General Assembly" <ga@dnso.org>; "Alexander Svensson"
>> > <alexander@svensson.de>
>> > Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2002 2:43 PM
>> > Subject: Re: [ga] FYI: WLS Vote of Transfers Task Force
>>
>>
>> >> sorry if I took a while in replying to this thread but Im just getting
>> >> caught up here.
>> >> ummmmmm...Todd, I have a problem with the first paragraph. I see nowhere
>> >> how you get to the conclusion that WLS requires this assumption.
>>
>> > How do you figure Dan - the Internet Domain Name is either a marque or its
>> > not. If it is, then there are other pre-existing rules about how marques are
>> > used and what constitutes abandonment. If the registrars want to create a
>> > set of Internet Marque rules then then need to take them through Congress.
>>
>> > As for what WLS implies, it is that "the failure to re-register in a timely
>> > manner invalidates the ownership of the IP through abandonment", and that is
>> > simply ludicrous. It also assumes that there is only one of any given marque
>> > and as we are seeing with Countries like China's operating their own ROOT's
>> > that this also simply is not true anymore.
>>
>> > Dont get hung up on the concept that NAT (yes Name to Address Translation)
>> > and the operation of multiple independant roots is now about to change how
>> > DNS is doled out on this planet, it already is.
>>
>> > So with that said, this one domain name only per wordset simply is not true.
>> > The game here is that the Pro-WLS are narrowly focused on the ICANN-ONLY
>> > Root and some of its registrars want to be able to book the sale of names
>> > against the possibility that those names within the ICANN Root may become
>> > abandoned. Which in their book is the same as expired and not re-registered.
>>
>> > So the real issue here again, is under the PTO's operating standards, is a
>> > Domain Name reliably equatable as IP. If it is then the WLS stuff may
>> > actually become a conspriacy between the Publications Agent and the Party
>> > wishing to acquire the name. here is an example.
>>
>> > Registrar A registers a domain for Joe Bob. And then sells the first
>> > position to Mazy Sue;
>>
>> > There are immediatly two questions that have to be answered. One of them is
>> > IP centric, the other is operation's centric.
>>
>> > 1) Is there a fidutiary responsibility from the Registrar booking
>> > the WLS order, to inform Joe Bob that someone has registered for their
>> > domain if it ever is abandoned.
>>
>> > 2) Now assume that the WLS registrar booking the order, is the same
>> > Registrar publishing the domain. How does this play out with other WLS
>> > enabled Registrars, since if the domain is housed with the Registrar also
>> > has a WLS against it, there is a fairness problem since
>>
>>
>> >> In
>> >> fact, I have debated the intellectual property concern with trademark
>> >> attorneys many times, icluding representatives of the Intellectual
>> >> Property constituency on the task force charges with making a
>> >> recommendation to names council on this issue. My position has been that
>> >> WLS is IP-neutral. And I dont think you can find anyone who knows their
>> >> way around IP arguing with me.
>> >>
>> >> So perhaps you can enlighten me....how does the fact of having a WLS
>> >> service turn a domain into a trademark at all, let alone...a separate
>> >> class?
>>
>> > See above commentary
>>
>> >> speaking of class, are you referring to the various classes of marques
>> >> such as they have in the International Trademark Calssification Guide
>> >> such as class 26 for fancy goods? or a differnt use of the word 'class'?
>>
>> > To some extent. But you mean Classification not Calcification?
>>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> todd glassey wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > The problem with the WLS is simple- it will cause a liability in
>> > operations
>> >> > against ICANN in that it assumes that the marks or Internet Domain Names
>> >> > that have to date been treated as trade marks are not that, and that
>> > they
>> >> > are the ONE and ONLY MARQUE used by that IP Holder.
>> >> >
>> >> > This makes the Internet Domain Name a separate class of Marque and this
>> >> > would take an act of law to put in place.
>> >> >
>> >> > They (the WLS Registrars) also are looking to put in place that because
>> >> > these "marques" are only valid during the period of being registered,
>> > that
>> >> > the instant the registration expires that the owners has officially
>> >> > abandoned the marque and that is ludicrous at best. This erroneous
>> >> > assumption of US Trademark Law would then place the marque further into
>> > the
>> >> > control of the registrar and not the real owner of the marque.
>> >> >
>> >> > The rules about trademark Intellectual Property are simple and have been
>> > in
>> >> > effect for much longer than there was an Internet, so without modifying
>> >> > them, the WLS itself is probably illegal in my estimation and will
>> > likely be
>> >> > challenged in court.
>> >> >
>> >> > The net effect is that anyone suffering damages due to what I consider a
>> >> > "commercially self-centered" policy, should just sue the registrar and
>> > ICANN
>> >> > jointly for the damages. And I assure you that the veil of the
>> > corporation
>> >> > is most likely easily pierced in such a situation. And pierced such
>> > that
>> >> > the ICANN Board Members can be held financially accountable for damages
>> > in
>> >> > WLS based damage claims... personally.
>> >> >
>> >> > My feeling is that it will be very interesting to see how this works
>> > out,
>> >> > since I am sure ICANN's director's insurance would not cover a malicious
>> > act
>> >> > of creating a system that intentionally allows to usurping of existing
>> >> > marques. And what also about certain registrar's refusals to delete
>> > expired
>> >> > domains or to allow transfers to happen to domains... Seems like we have
>> > the
>> >> > same problem. The registers controlling access to IP's they do not own.
>> >> >
>> >> > Todd Glassey
>> >> >
>> >> > ----- Original Message -----
>> >> > From: "Alexander Svensson" <alexander@svensson.de>
>> >> > To: "DNSO General Assembly" <ga@dnso.org>
>> >> > Sent: Wednesday, July 24, 2002 3:17 AM
>> >> > Subject: [ga] FYI: WLS Vote of Transfers Task Force
>> >> >
>> >> > >
>> >> > >
>> >> > > From: "Philip Sheppard" <philip.sheppard@aim.be>
>> >> > > >In preparation for the NC discussion and vote on the final report of
>> > the
>> >> > Transfers task force on the Wait List Service referral, please see below
>> > the
>> >> > result of the internal vote of the task force on their report. (Edits
>> > for
>> >> > clarity are mine.)
>> >> > > >Philip.
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > >----------------------------------
>> >> > > >I. Recommendation 1: To deny the WLS:
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > >A. RGP The ICANN board move with all haste to implement and actively
>> >> > enforce the
>> >> > > >proposed Redemptions Grace Period for Deleted Names policy and
>> > practice
>> >> > > >Yes: ccTLD, ISPCP, GA, NonC, IP, gTLD, Registrars, BC
>> >> > > >Accepted by all
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > >B. WLS and agreement. The ICANN Board reject Verisign's request to
>> > amend
>> >> > its agreement to
>> >> > > >enable it to introduce its proposed WLS.
>> >> > > >Yes: ccTLD, ISPCP, GA, NonC, Registrars, BC
>> >> > > >No: IP, gTLD
>> >> > > >6 YES 2 NO
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > >C. WLS trial. The ICANN Board reject Verisign's request to trial the
>> > WLS
>> >> > for 12 months.
>> >> > > >Yes: ccTLd, ISPCP, GA, Registrars, BC
>> >> > > >No: gTLD
>> >> > > >Abstain: NonC, IP
>> >> > > >5 YES 1 NO 2 ABSTENTIONS
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > >I. Summary Recommendation to deny the WLS:
>> >> > > >Yes: ccTLD, ISPCP, GA, NonC, Registrars, BC
>> >> > > >No: IP, gTLD
>> >> > > >6 YES 2 NO
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > >II. Contingency recommendations in event the Board rejects the TF
>> > prime
>> >> > recommendation.
>> >> > > >Should the ICANN board not accept the policy recommendations noted
>> > above
>> >> > > >and grant Verisign's request for a change to its agreement and a 12
>> > month
>> >> > > >trial of its WLS, we would alternatively recommend that WLS be
>> > approved
>> >> > with
>> >> > > >conditions:
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > >A. RGP. The introduction of WLS is dependent on the implementation
>> > and
>> >> > proven
>> >> > > >(for not less than six months) practice envisaged in the proposed
>> >> > > >Redemption Grace Period for Deleted Names policy and practice and the
>> >> > > >establishment of a standard deletion practise.
>> >> > > >Yes:ccTLD, ISPCP, GA, NonC, IP, Registrars, BC
>> >> > > >No:gTLD
>> >> > > >7 YES 1 NO
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > >B. Deletions. Several Constituencies remain concerned that a standard
>> >> > deletion practise
>> >> > > >be established and implemented. Some TF members believe that this
>> > could
>> >> > be
>> >> > > >considered separately from WLS.
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > >(CHOICE OF ONE OF THREE):
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > >1) Standard Deletion practise should be established at same time as
>> > WLS
>> >> > and
>> >> > > >implemented before WLS.
>> >> > > >Yes: ccTLD, ISPCP, GA, Registrars, BC
>> >> > > >5 YES
>> >> > > >2) Standard deletion practise should be established, but need not be
>> > in
>> >> > > >place before
>> >> > > >WLS is implemented.
>> >> > > >Yes: IP, NonC
>> >> > > >2 YES
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > >3) Standard deletion practise should be considered separately.
>> >> > > >Yes: gTLD
>> >> > > >1 YES
>> >> > > >C. Information/notice. (CHOICE OF ONE OF TWO).
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > >C. 1. The WLS include a requirement that notice be provided by the
>> >> > Registry
>> >> > > >(through the registrar) to the existing registrant of a domain name
>> > when
>> >> > a
>> >> > > >WLS option is taken out against that registrant's domain name.
>> >> > > >Yes: GA, NonC,
>> >> > > >2 YES
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > >C. 2. Information should be available to the incumbent domain
>> >> > > >name holder when a WLS has been put on the name.
>> >> > > >Yes: ccTLD, ISPCP, IP, BC, .Registrars
>> >> > > >Abstain: gTLD,
>> >> > > >5 YES 1 Abstain
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > >D. Transparency. The WLS include a requirement for full transparency
>> > as
>> >> > to who has placed
>> >> > > >a WLS option on a domain name and the registrar that actions the
>> > option.
>> >> > > >Yes: ccTLD, ISPCP, GA, NonC, Registrars, BC
>> >> > > >No: IP
>> >> > > >Abstain: gTLD
>> >> > > >6 YES 1 NO 1 Abstain
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > >E. Cost. WLS should be cost based, consistent with previous
>> >> > considerations for
>> >> > > >approval of Registry services by the ICANN Board.
>> >> > > >Yes: ccTLD, ISPCP, GA, , Registrars, BC
>> >> > > >Abstain: IP, gTLD, NonC
>> >> > > >5 YES 3 Abstain
>> >> > >
>> >> >
>> >>--------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >> > >
>> >> > > --
>> >> > > 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@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
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Dan Steinberg
>> >>
>> >> SYNTHESIS:Law & Technology
>> >> 35, du Ravin phone: (613) 794-5356
>> >> Chelsea, Quebec fax: (819) 827-4398
>> >> J9B 1N1 e-mail:synthesis@videotron.ca
>> >> --
>> >> 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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Best regards,
>> William X Walsh <william@wxsoft.info>
>> --
>> Save Internet Radio!
>> CARP will kill Webcasting!
>> http://www.saveinternetradio.org/
>>
>>
>> --
>> 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
--
Best regards,
William X Walsh <william@wxsoft.info>
--
Save Internet Radio!
CARP will kill Webcasting!
http://www.saveinternetradio.org/
--
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
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|