Re: [ga] Domain names as observed

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

on 7/30/01 12:06 PM, Kent Crispin at kent@songbird.com wrote:

> 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...

Then you interpreted wrong. The names are registered, but do not resolve to
any website, i.e not active. Apologies for any confusion, but the fact that
I discussed to whom they are registered at length should have made that
clear. 
> 
>> 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.

Yes I do agree with the TM people on that point, but would also treat with
extreme caution any policy that favors one special interest group at the
expense of another.
 
>> 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.

I don't think you mean that. To *only* have rights to the domain name if you
have some IPRs, means that the TM lobby owns the DNS, which it does not.
> 
>> 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.

The general public is never irrelevant to an organization that has been set
up for, and is accountable to, the public trust, however elitist one may
wish it to be.

> 
>> 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.

By that logic, ICANN would currently be developing an "expired string
policy". Your phone service may be interrupted, you call customer service,
they will ask you what telephone number you are calling about, not which
disconnected string of numbers. Technician to technician may be different,
but ICANN is required to interface with all interested stakeholders and the
DNSO GA is not and should not become the IETF.

> 
>> 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".

Point taken.
> 
<snip>
> 
> 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.

Making policy and explaining policy are not the same thing. It doesn't serve
the public for ICANN to announce new domain name policies if there is no
common understanding of what is a domain name, which is how this thread
started (in case you've forgotten).

>At some point, technical issues take absolute
> priority: 

Stability takes absolute priority, and that encompasses social as well as
technical issues. While I do not seek to diminish the importance of
technical issues, I do recognize that ICANN is doing more than talk about
technical co-ordination, and has recently dropped the pretence that it is
not. How ICANN can make technical decisions in a socially responsible manner
is what the ALSC is currently addressing. Meanwhile, ICANN is in the
precarious position of advancing into social policy making without a proper
mechanism in place to be accountable to the public trust. The Alt.roots
problem is the result of poor consideration being given to the impact of
market forces as a result of technical decisions. There has to be a 100%
commitment one way or the other to either ignore or embrace the social
issues as well as the technical, but half measures do not support good
decisions being made on anything.

>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...


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