Re: [ga] Jefsey and intellectual property.

[Jefsey Morfin <jefsey@wanadoo.fr>]

Thank you for your questions. I look for your additional inputs
in response as we have a chance tomorrow to discuss with
the IPC. What is not that often.

On 00:27 16/08/01, Thomas Roessler said:
>(Change of subject because this really doesn't have anything to do with 
>.info any more.)
>
>On 2001-08-15 18:39:48 +0200, Jefsey Morfin wrote:
>
>>3. UDRP should be a tool to remove user confusion not to settle
>>    disputes.
>
>Maybe I'm a bit dumb - but it's still a dispute resolution policy, that 
>is, by definition, a tool to settle disputes, isn't it?

I do not understand the comment. What I say is that the UDRP is not to 
consider legal arguments nor to  investigate motivations. As a user I am 
not interested. It should only say if a named is used in a way which might 
confuse me.

>>4. Pragamatic and fair solutions should be favored, such as    calling on 
>>a randomly chosen wide user jury rather than on a    single panelist. The 
>>size of the Jury (250 more accounting for    the various languages and 
>>cultures).
>
>How do you want to recruit the jurors?  This doesn't even look close to 
>being realistic or  practicable.

You probably react too quickly without having considered the problem and 
asked a solution to  professionals. You should first consider the way the 
German Justice works, who are jurors and why they accept. The concept of 
UDRP was much more unrealistic at the beginning. Established things seem 
obvious! We tend to forget that before they existed they were considered as 
unrealistic by many.

>>5. Realistic policy should be carried and TM protection should 
>>be    discussed with every TLD Manager, including those the ICANN 
>>has  not yet got the time to register.
>
>Could you please be a bit more specific on what you are talking about here?

There are many TLDs in operations that ICANN has not got the time to 
consider as they should as part of their IANA function responsibilities to 
he Global, Local and Registrants Internet Communities. This is fully 
documented in FTC 920.

The fact that ICANN fails to comply with its mission does not remove the 
right to be protected to their non-registrants. Today CocaCola should be in 
a position to ask that a "cocalcola.web" would be turned to them. For more 
than one year I asked the WIPO to respond on how to relate with them.
- that ICANN wants to be dogmatic about the DNS does not prevent commercial 
rights to exist.
- I started asking the WIPO as the .SYS Consortium and its $ 50.000. We 
though all this was too un professional to risk what was a big amount to us.

>(Oh, while we are on the topic of non-ICANN-TLDs - what's your current 
>opinion on .biz?  Which one should be put into the USG root, again?)

I do not understand your perpetual teasing of mine. I would understand a 
confrontation of positions.

As you perfectly know my position is to the users. Every .biz registrant is 
entitled to continue to have his site accessed. The DoC was entitled to be 
reported the problem by the BoD. The ICANN has created a collision. The 
first ever in a deliberated way. They first denied. Then they 
acknowledged  and they will be legally responsible should a registrant file 
a case.

NewLevel failed the users of Leah, they failed their good faith registrants 
with their lottery. Not a good start. I do hope they correct all that and 
find a fair solution with Leah.

As far as I am concerned I will decide from Leah's report, from technical 
possibilities, from user demands. Nothing prevents us to have two roots 
offered to the users.

Real world is real. Decisions are not religious. They only try to respond 
the market demand.

>>6. Bold attitude should be developped over the defense of    authoring 
>>rights preventing linking collisions over time: whan    an author creates 
>>a link to a site, he is entitled to expect -    and so are the readers 
>>too - that in clicking that link the    intended page will be displayed 
>>or absent. But not a page from    another site.
>
>Define the "intended page" in the case of dynamic content.  Define the 
>"intended page" when it's changed by the original author in a way those 
>who set links didn't expect.  Are you suggesting that ICANN re-designs the 
>Web, or what?

May be would you want to define what is a "dynamic" DN for you. As you know 
I have a definition and services using that word. I suppose you do not use 
it in the same context, as in my context your question has no meaning.

As a general comment : an author does what he wants. The point is that the 
"last year root" is a real "alternative root" to the current root. This is 
dues to a conception of DN sales not fitting the reality of the DN, not 
matching the RFC 920 and not respecting the reader's rights.
.
>>7. UDRP should be possible on an informational/portection basis. 
>>I    should be able to take an UDRP. If I am confirmed no one can    UDRP me.
>
>I don't understand what this paragraph is supposed to say. What does to 
>"take an UDRP" mean?

The UDRP - as explained in the first comment - should be a test about the 
user confusion over a name. If people in Chamonix start calling the "Mont 
Blanc" the "Big Apple", someone from New York may get confused and 
complain. I therefore use the locution "to take an UDRP" as one says "to 
take a test". When I register a DN, I should be permitted to take a test 
(UDRP) about the confusion it may create. Once the User Community through 
the UDRP system has said there was no confusion, I should protected against 
any other complaint. Among other things it would fully demonstrate my good 
faith: my proposition is therefore totally conform to the UDRP and falls 
into the improvement that any Registry, ccTLD or Panel may add to the UDRP.

Thank you for your time. I am interested in your suggestions to be 
discussed with the IPC.

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