Re: [ga] [DNDEF] Analysis of "Domain Definition Poll" - Part I.

[Sotiropoulos <sotiris@hermesnetwork.com>]

Cade,Marilyn S - LGA wrote:

> In the voting, was "abstain" one of the options?  

No, it was not.  Those who did not wish to vote did not.  Of the 140 
people on the
WG at the time, a total of 25 voted (18% of the total).

Sincerely,

Sotiris Sotiropoulos
       Hermes Network, Inc.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sotiropoulos [mailto:sotiris@hermesnetwork.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2001 6:41 PM
> To: ga@dnso.org
> Subject: [ga] [DNDEF] Analysis of "Domain Definition Poll" - Part I.
> 
> 
> Domain Name Definition Poll
> 
> I have taken the time to form an analysis of the results
> from the "Domain Name Definition Poll" I conducted from 
> the period of Survey Start on 1/13/01 10:01:17 AM
> through to survey End on 1/15/01 5:44 PM.  This `report'
> should not be considered hermeneutically exhaustive, and is 
> open to suggestions.  
> 
> Total participation number in the poll was 25 respondents, this represents 
> roughly 18% of the listed participants on the WG-Review.  This of course,
> assuming 
> that nobody voted twice, as it was an `insecure' poll, and that all of the
> respondents were in fact members of the WG.  However, I
> am inclined to state that I consider the poll results as a fairly
> accurate (caveat) representation of many of the ideas and positions 
> expressed in WG-Review deliberations.  
> 
> My analysis of the "Domain Name Definition Poll" will be presented
> in three parts, each corresponding to three sets of the total of 9 questions
> 
> which
> appeared on the above referenced poll.  
> 
> This segment constitutes Part I:
> 
> In answer to the question: 1.  Are Domain Names property or a service?
> 
> 52.00% (13 respondents) considered them to be property.  Of course, 
> this leaves the issue of *whose* property, completely unanswered.
> 
> 8.00% (2 respondents) considered them to be a service.  The nature of the
> service itself was not indicated in the question, nor its ultimate provider 
> established.  The relative unpopularity of this response may have something 
> to do with the relative popularity of the very next result.  (Perhaps the 
> exclusivity of the question played a role.)
> 
> 32.00% (8 respondents) indicated that it was both; a service and property. 
> This response serves to undeniably establish and underscore the magnitude 
> of the domain name definition confusion issue.   
> 
> 8.00% (2 respondents) chose the "Don't Know" option as their answer.  As 
> any codified definition of the ontological status of domain names is 
> completely lacking, I find myself sympathizing with this answer in
> particular.  
> 
> Conclusion, although there were respondents who "did not know"
> if domain names were property or a service, a traditional majority
> (i.e.50+1) 
> was established in the position advocating apparently unqualified property 
> status.  However, there was a significant proportion of respondents who 
> indicated that domain names were of a hybrid nature; partaking of both 
> property and service status. The implications of this latter response are 
> unclear as the question was much too generally phrased and further data is 
> not currently available.
> 
> In answer to the question: 2. Should the issue of trademarks and geographic 
> indications be conflated with Domain names?
> 
> 16.00% (4 respondents) considered that domain names should be conflated
> with trademark issues.  Of course, what is unclear (due to the general
> nature
> of the question) is the degree of any such conflation, and its conditions.
> The 
> currently available data is not sufficient to base any conjectures in this 
> regard.
> 
> 52.00% (13 respondents) indicated that domain names should not be 
> conflated with trademarks and/or geographic indications.  The similarity in 
> number of respondents between the result for this question, and the 
> equivalent result in question 1 (above) [i.e. in support of considering them
> to 
> be property] suggests two things:
> First, that although domains were considered to be property, they were not 
> (presumablybut not necessarily by the same people) considered to be 
> trademark-type property by a traditional majority result. (i.e. 50+1 votes) 
> Second, it leaves open the questions of what type of property (if that's
> what 
> they are) domain names should be considered to be, as well as the issue of 
> `ownership'.
> 
> 16.00% (4 respondents) indicated that domain names should sometimes be 
> conflated with trademarks/geography.  This indicates that applying 
> trademark law in some, but not other instances, was a relatively unpopular 
> option in this poll.  
> 
> 8.00% (2 respondents) chose the "Don't Know" option, indicating further 
> confusion regarding the ultimate or conditional status of domain names.
> 
> 8.00% (2 respondents) chose the "Other" option.  If anybody on or about the 
> WG *volunteers* the fee for the "comments" results of this unofficial, 
> insecure poll, I would be happy to comply in presenting any input not 
> currently available.
> 
> Conclusion:  A traditional majority (50+1) of the respondents expressed the 
> opinion that domain names should not be conflated with 
> trademarks/geography.  Since the nature of the question is exclusive, this 
> result would appear to represent a fixed opinion (with no apparent 
> conditions for its application) decidedly against any conflation between 
> domains/trademarks/geography. 
> 
> In response to the question: 3. If  Domain Names are considered eqivalent 
> to trademarks or geographic indications, does this make them property?
> 
> 64.00% (16 respondents) in other words, a strong majority (just under 2/3), 
> indicated that if domain names were considered the eqivalents of 
> trademarks, that they did in fact constitute "property" of some kind.
> 
> 12.00% (3 respondents) indicated that domains did not constitute property 
> despite the conflation with trademarks.
> 
> 16.00% (4 respondents) indicated that domains were sometimes property, 
> and sometimes not, when conflated with trademarks.  This response is 
> interesting in that the qualifications and conditions for property status as
> a 
> trademark eqivalent are not outlined, at least with respect 
> to the simple numbers and without additional data.  Thus I can only comment 
> on what is readily available.
> 
> 8.00% (2 respondents) chose the "Don't Know" option.  
> 
> Conclusion:  A large percentage of respondents believe that conflation of 
> domain names with trademarks raises a property status issue. This is 
> especially clear if we combine those who feel this unreservedly (64.00%), 
> and those who indicated that it is conditional (16.00%),  for a total of
> 80.00%.  
> I believe these findings indicate a real need for intensive discussion on
> the 
> definition of domain names.
> 
> I would appreciate any comments, corrections, or points of dissension with 
> respect to the above analysis of my findings.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sotiris Sotiropoulos
>           Hermes Network, Inc. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sotiris Sotiropoulos
>           Hermes Network, Inc. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> 
> 

--
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