Re: [ga] Stolen domains, transfers, WHOIS, audit trails, and system integrity

[Jsavirimuthu@aol.com]

In a message dated 9/12/02 11:23:49 GMT Standard Time, jefsey@club-internet.fr writes:


> On 20:22 09/12/02, Jsavirimuthu@aol.com said:
> >The problems arise from the spontaneous adaptation of a technical 
> >addressing systemto functions and purposes beyond those for which it was 
> >originallydesigned.
>
> I am sorry to object. The problems arise from the lack of analysis by IAB 
> and USG of what a network system is. That lack of analysis is general and 
> creates as much problems at TM level as at technology level.
>
> Let try to make it quickly. When you turn a key in a lock, the hardware 
> logic says closed/open. That logic has been used in hardware system up to 
> the Versailles Great Waters, or mid-XX century cashiers.
>
> The lamps and then transistors came and millions of electronic lockers 
> started supporting software. And we developed applications. You facing the 
> application on your screen.  We build big applications. Then they went 
> remote and computers were accessed though a "network". That network was a 
> computer access network, hardware and software (the Internet), 
> interconnecting access and broadcast technologies. That lead to the use of 
> the "information" word which is quite the old "informatique" word in Latin 
> languages.
>
> This hide the extension. Progressively millions of brains started using (no 
> more only watching) the same application through the network. This awaken 
> the "noosphere" (a word coined by Teilhard de Chardin in the 30s) and 
> developed the Cybernetics (by Wiener and in here more Coufignal in the 
> 40s). the science of the feed back. TV has no feed back and is no "cyber". 
> What apply in there is the "brainware". The way all the users' brain 
> consider the system - never mind if they are mistaken (like in their belief 
> the root is important) - what counts is what they believe and will do out 
> of this belief.
>
> Now let come back to TM. TMs are commercial mnemonics for a class and a 
> county. As mnemonics they are in/from your brain. Now, your brain has been 
> induced a brainware rule : "the mnemonic IBM will probably make a good 
> candidate for ibm.com on the Internet, if not try ibm.net then depending on 
> your country try ibm.fr or ibm.uk and if it does not work use Goggle".
>
> That brainware resolution is a totally separate task from the DNS 
> resolution into an IP address. Of real different essence. Such brainware 
> resolution uses a mnemonic which is protected by TM rules. Confusing the 
> layers make the DN affected by the TM laws what is absurd (the same as if 
> the printer was sued to have printed a TM label for a customer).and totally 
> inapplicable as in violation of many TM rules (I note that Michael is only 
> considering the US registrations, what about the Iraqi registrations, or 
> the French or the Andorran?).
>
> Putting the problem back into its proper perspective permits to understand 
> what applies to what. One does not sue a newspaper because it reported on a 
> famous or non famous TM. Internet is like a news paper : it is a way to 
> access information. Only a medium. The confusion beween information 
> (software) and content (brainware) inhérited from the confusion and lack of 
> proper English wording above make believe that the Internet is a media and 
> is responsible. It is not. Your brain is resposible, not your voice.
>
> When DNs are "misused", it only is because the mnemonic is misused.
> jfc


This was an offline email sent by jfc:
In a message dated 9/12/02 11:23:49 GMT Standard Time, 
>jefsey@club-internet.fr writes:
>> >The problems arise from the spontaneous adaptation of a technical
>> >addressing systemto functions and purposes beyond those for which it was
>> >originallydesigned.
>>
>>I am sorry to object. The problems arise from the lack of analysis by IAB
>>and USG of what a network system is. That lack of analysis is general and
>>creates as much problems at TM level as at technology level.
>
>I presume you are objecting to the inferences we are encouraged to draw 
>from the extract from WIPO which I quoted in the post.

I object to the quoted sentence of yours.

>That extract was cited to underscore Karl's(?) observation that problems 
>emerging from the trade mark - domain name interface are not necessarily 
>unique nor new.

I documented what and why I objected. Got problems reading it?
Karls observations are exact but everything boils down to the erroneous 
analysis and just repeats that ad nauseam. When something is wrng, it is 
wrong and every aspect of will repeat it is wrong.
jfc

======================
Joseph