Re: [ga] Domain names as observed (was Tucows Response to Cochet tiTransfer Letter)

[Joanna Lane <jo-uk@rcn.com>]

Joanna wrote:-
<snip>
>> an original artistic and literary work. A real
>> life example of that would be "bazoomer.com", which features as the product
>> placement storyline in David Mammet's fictional film "State and Main" (BTW,
>> an excellent movie). Another example is VeriSign's own "the-bug-reaper.com"
>> commercial.  Neither of these domain names is active, and probably never
>> will be,

Kent wrote:- 
> Then they aren't really domain names.

That's one argument, but I suggest you'll have a hard time getting it past
an industry that is in the business of buying and selling illusions.
VeriSign would not agree to revoke it's own registration in favor of another
entity exhibiting whatever on the bug-reaper website, neither would it
launch a fully functioning website selling fly spray, nor drop its
advertising campaign altogether.

You are also being completely unrealistic if you expect major studios to
agree domain name registrations are off-limits except for fully functioning
film distribution and merchandising websites etc. They need access to domain
names for dramatic purposes when a script calls for it, and to hold rights
in those names as previously explained. This should be a very simple matter
to arrange compared to fake identity documents and deadly weapons, which of
course is done on a daily basis.


<snip>
Joanna wrote:-
> their purpose [bazooma.com and the-bug-reaper.com] is simply to exist in an
artistic and literary
> context as part of fictional work that is being exploited extensively in the
> public domain using other media - theatrical release, broadcast TV, DVD,
> Video etc. 
> 
> These examples, and others, may enter the public conscious without ever
> being accessible in the DNS roots or appearing on a single end user screen.
> Therefore, it's seems obvious to me that strictly speaking, it is possible
> (albeit not desireable) for a dotcom Domain name to exist and be exploited
> without any formal registrar service contract with VeriSign.

Kent wrote:-

>You are exploiting a string.  But you only have rights to the *domain
>name* if you have some intellectual property rights that you develop for
>the string -- eg, a TM.

Clear communication is a priority, so using words that provide no clue as to
what they actually mean is generally not attractive. "String" may be the
technical term, but it doesn't get the Plain English Award. Numerous
definitions are available in standard dictionaries, but none relate to
domain names. I sense that the general public would agree with the opinion
that any "string" ending with ".tld" is generally understood to be a "domain
name", even if it is unregistered and non-existant in any root. The phrase
is already in the vernacular in that respect.

Added to that, there is no way to distinguish the example.com "domain name"
from the example.com "string" by just looking at them, so it's nonsense to
give them totally different labels. I'm sure the public at large can manage
"unregistered domain name" and  "registered domain name", if that would be
more acceptable to you, but to refuse to use the term domain name in any
shape or form when referring to a .tld, simply because it may not have been
registered, is exactly the sort of confusion we should be avoiding in the
public interest.



Regards,
Joanna



--
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