Re: [ga] Domain names as observed

[Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com>]

On Mon, Jul 30, 2001 at 05:35:43AM -0400, Joanna Lane wrote:
> 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,

I interpreted "active" in this context to mean "registered", as you
appear to do as well, since you continue to use the term "registered" vs
"unregistered" below.  It makes a certain amount of sense, in fact,
since we were talking about legal issues, and the point of registration
is when the domain name gets legal status as a domain name, via the
registration agreement... 

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

...so the above means "unless a string is registered with a domain name
registry, it isn't a domain name."

> <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.

Note carefully what you are saying above.  You are essentially making a
claim that some kind of intellectual property rights can exist in a
string that looks like a domain name -- IPRs that can in some
circumstances, presumably, have weight in domain name disputes.  This is
precisely the kind of claim that TM people are making -- strings not
registered in the DNS can have IPRs associated with them, and those
rights can have effect in the realm of domain names.

> 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.

Reconsider the above statement in light of a string not registered as a 
domain name.  

> 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.

Deal with it.  We need a term for a generalized string of characters 
such as used in a domain name.  The fact that such a term isn't 
familiar to the general public is irrelevant.

> 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.

What's in the vernacular is not interesting.  We are discussing real
policy here, and do have to concern ourselves the distinction between 
unregistered vs registered strings.

> 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.

There is no way to distinguish between certain arsenic compounds and 
sugar, just by looking at them.  Therefore, we might as well call these 
arsenic compounds "sugar".

> 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.

Perhaps  we should use the terms "poisonous sugar" and "non-poisonous 
sugar" for all white granular compounds.  That would serve the public 
very well, I'm sure.

The point is, the domain name system is embedded in a technical
framework, with associated terms, and some familiarity with that
environment is required before one is qualified to make policy
concerning domain names.  At some point, technical issues take absolute
priority: no matter how hard you try, you can't legislate that
automobiles will henceforth use water for fuel; just like you can't 
legislatively decide that pi=3.  I know that Mr Lovell will shout that 
I am being an elitist technocrat for saying things like this...

-- 
Kent Crispin                               "Be good, and you will be
kent@songbird.com                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain
--
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