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

[Jefsey Morfin <jefsey@wanadoo.fr>]

On 21:45 29/07/01, Kent Crispin said:
>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.

Until when "some IP right" resolves only to "a TM"?
This being said your position is so,so.
You right on many points but a domain name is a domain name. That it has 
not been registered makes it only more vulnerable: someone may register it 
before you do. But once registered it is still in danger: VeriSign 
mismanagement, DoS against it, UDRP, court action, bad fame, ...

We have to chose.
Either a domain name is the name of a domain (what ever the domain and the 
domain definition may have to be refined) and the UDRP system is valid 
however it does not define what a DN is. Or the DN is something special by 
itself and the UDRP system is invalid since it does not define the DN.

The only problem in having a DN understood as the name of a domain is that 
the virtual domain notion will span outside the Internet - at least as the 
AmerICANN understands it. This may jeopardize many reasonings based upon 
the idea that the Internet is something special and the DNS is a 
hierarchical data base. I am not against that.

Jefsey

--
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