[ga-udrp] Re: [ga] UDRP Questionnaire

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

Mr. Harris,

Please allow me to ask that you be accepting that we use words in differing contexts.  The RFC standards are very illuminating as to how a very technical person refers and uses the words.  But if he really want's to have a conversation with a Domain Name Holders Bill of Rights advocate who is a policywog, he may have to be more receptive to dotcommoner perceptions of the names.

Most users register a name and have it hosted by an ISP.  Our clients do not care one wit about DNS and IP addressing they care that they can Brand a Domain Name and rely upon keeping it and having it work. A Domain Name to them is more in line with a Dictionary meaning of *Domain* & Name.  I find almost no reference in any opinion regarding UDRP that addresses the technical end of names and addresses and numbers.
It is a UDR *policy*, us policy types need technical types to work with us not against us, but in order to do that you really need to accept that there are other valid positions which are different than technical defintions.

Sandy Harris wrote:

Jeff Williams wrote:

> > > Is there a definition of domain name in a relevant RFC? I don't know the
> > > answer, but that might be a good question to ask someone on the IAB/IETF.
> >
> > As an RFC, or the same document as an Internet Standard:
> >
> > ftp://ftp.isi.edu/in-notes/rfc1034.txt
> > ftp://ftp.isi.edu/in-notes/std/std13.txt
>
> Neither of these is a standard, but rather "Notes".

Nonsense.

> the latter of the two
> references does contain a RFC-1035 with is an RFC (Request for Comment)
> not a standard that is relevant to what Marilyn was requesting/suggesting.

It has an STD number; that labels it officially as an Internet Standard.
See RFC 2026 "The Internet Standards Process":

   Some RFCs document Internet Standards.  These RFCs form the 'STD'
   subseries of the RFC series [4].  When a specification has been
   adopted as an Internet Standard, it is given the additional label
   "STDxxx", but it keeps its RFC number and its place in the RFC
   series. ...

Divergent opinions are fine, but please don't attempt to make factual
pronouncements unless you know what you're talking about.
 

In otherwords it is a fact that the RFC is not necessarily relevant to
the Policy in which Marilyn was referring.
The last thing I want to do here is cause more antagonism between the
divergent interests, but we have to listen or read with an ear toward who
is writing and why what they are saying is correct from their perspective
and get some agreement here or just hand over the UDRP to the IP constituency
and let them have their way.

Sincerely,
Eric