<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [ga] FYI: WLS Vote of Transfers Task Force
So tell me then, Why is it right for someone to have a root-level monopoly on selling a service?
What right does ICANN have to define the business models of registrars and TLD holders?
(hint: they dont).
What right do they have to claim they are any kind of authority? (hint: none - they have no power).
What real authority do they have? (hint: none, unless people continue to be sheep and point
their ISP resolvers or individual machines at ICANN/USG roots).
They are a corrupt monopoly. Plain and simple.
----- Original Message -----
From: "William X Walsh" <william@wxsoft.info>
To: "todd glassey" <todd.glassey@worldnet.att.net>
Cc: "Dan Steinberg" <synthesis@videotron.ca>; "DNSO General Assembly" <ga@dnso.org>; "Alexander Svensson" <alexander@svensson.de>
Sent: Friday, July 26, 2002 2:23 PM
Subject: Re: [ga] FYI: WLS Vote of Transfers Task Force
>
> Get it through your head, Todd.
>
> Let me spell it out very slowly for you:
>
> D-o-m-a-i-n n-a-m-e-s a-r-e n-o-t a-u-t-o-m-a-t-i-c-a-l-l-y
> i-n-t-e-l-l-e-c-t-u-a-l p-r-o-p-e-r-t-y.
>
> Do you understand that now, Todd?
>
> A domain name is a service, paid for, for a fixed period of time. Let
> it lapse, and someone can register it and use it, and can do without
> necessarily violating your IP rights. They MAY use it in a fashion
> that violates your IP rights, but it is not the requirement of the
> domain name system to protect your IP rights for you.
>
> Do you need it explained to you yet again, Todd? How many times have
> you had this explained to you by myself and others?
>
> Friday, July 26, 2002, 11:34:15 AM, todd glassey wrote:
>
>
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Dan Steinberg" <synthesis@videotron.ca>
> > To: "todd glassey" <todd.glassey@worldnet.att.net>
> > Cc: "DNSO General Assembly" <ga@dnso.org>; "Alexander Svensson"
> > <alexander@svensson.de>
> > Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2002 2:43 PM
> > Subject: Re: [ga] FYI: WLS Vote of Transfers Task Force
>
>
> >> sorry if I took a while in replying to this thread but Im just getting
> >> caught up here.
> >> ummmmmm...Todd, I have a problem with the first paragraph. I see nowhere
> >> how you get to the conclusion that WLS requires this assumption.
>
> > How do you figure Dan - the Internet Domain Name is either a marque or its
> > not. If it is, then there are other pre-existing rules about how marques are
> > used and what constitutes abandonment. If the registrars want to create a
> > set of Internet Marque rules then then need to take them through Congress.
>
> > As for what WLS implies, it is that "the failure to re-register in a timely
> > manner invalidates the ownership of the IP through abandonment", and that is
> > simply ludicrous. It also assumes that there is only one of any given marque
> > and as we are seeing with Countries like China's operating their own ROOT's
> > that this also simply is not true anymore.
>
> > Dont get hung up on the concept that NAT (yes Name to Address Translation)
> > and the operation of multiple independant roots is now about to change how
> > DNS is doled out on this planet, it already is.
>
> > So with that said, this one domain name only per wordset simply is not true.
> > The game here is that the Pro-WLS are narrowly focused on the ICANN-ONLY
> > Root and some of its registrars want to be able to book the sale of names
> > against the possibility that those names within the ICANN Root may become
> > abandoned. Which in their book is the same as expired and not re-registered.
>
> > So the real issue here again, is under the PTO's operating standards, is a
> > Domain Name reliably equatable as IP. If it is then the WLS stuff may
> > actually become a conspriacy between the Publications Agent and the Party
> > wishing to acquire the name. here is an example.
>
> > Registrar A registers a domain for Joe Bob. And then sells the first
> > position to Mazy Sue;
>
> > There are immediatly two questions that have to be answered. One of them is
> > IP centric, the other is operation's centric.
>
> > 1) Is there a fidutiary responsibility from the Registrar booking
> > the WLS order, to inform Joe Bob that someone has registered for their
> > domain if it ever is abandoned.
>
> > 2) Now assume that the WLS registrar booking the order, is the same
> > Registrar publishing the domain. How does this play out with other WLS
> > enabled Registrars, since if the domain is housed with the Registrar also
> > has a WLS against it, there is a fairness problem since
>
>
> >> In
> >> fact, I have debated the intellectual property concern with trademark
> >> attorneys many times, icluding representatives of the Intellectual
> >> Property constituency on the task force charges with making a
> >> recommendation to names council on this issue. My position has been that
> >> WLS is IP-neutral. And I dont think you can find anyone who knows their
> >> way around IP arguing with me.
> >>
> >> So perhaps you can enlighten me....how does the fact of having a WLS
> >> service turn a domain into a trademark at all, let alone...a separate
> >> class?
>
> > See above commentary
>
> >> speaking of class, are you referring to the various classes of marques
> >> such as they have in the International Trademark Calssification Guide
> >> such as class 26 for fancy goods? or a differnt use of the word 'class'?
>
> > To some extent. But you mean Classification not Calcification?
>
> >>
> >>
> >> todd glassey wrote:
> >> >
> >> > The problem with the WLS is simple- it will cause a liability in
> > operations
> >> > against ICANN in that it assumes that the marks or Internet Domain Names
> >> > that have to date been treated as trade marks are not that, and that
> > they
> >> > are the ONE and ONLY MARQUE used by that IP Holder.
> >> >
> >> > This makes the Internet Domain Name a separate class of Marque and this
> >> > would take an act of law to put in place.
> >> >
> >> > They (the WLS Registrars) also are looking to put in place that because
> >> > these "marques" are only valid during the period of being registered,
> > that
> >> > the instant the registration expires that the owners has officially
> >> > abandoned the marque and that is ludicrous at best. This erroneous
> >> > assumption of US Trademark Law would then place the marque further into
> > the
> >> > control of the registrar and not the real owner of the marque.
> >> >
> >> > The rules about trademark Intellectual Property are simple and have been
> > in
> >> > effect for much longer than there was an Internet, so without modifying
> >> > them, the WLS itself is probably illegal in my estimation and will
> > likely be
> >> > challenged in court.
> >> >
> >> > The net effect is that anyone suffering damages due to what I consider a
> >> > "commercially self-centered" policy, should just sue the registrar and
> > ICANN
> >> > jointly for the damages. And I assure you that the veil of the
> > corporation
> >> > is most likely easily pierced in such a situation. And pierced such
> > that
> >> > the ICANN Board Members can be held financially accountable for damages
> > in
> >> > WLS based damage claims... personally.
> >> >
> >> > My feeling is that it will be very interesting to see how this works
> > out,
> >> > since I am sure ICANN's director's insurance would not cover a malicious
> > act
> >> > of creating a system that intentionally allows to usurping of existing
> >> > marques. And what also about certain registrar's refusals to delete
> > expired
> >> > domains or to allow transfers to happen to domains... Seems like we have
> > the
> >> > same problem. The registers controlling access to IP's they do not own.
> >> >
> >> > Todd Glassey
> >> >
> >> > ----- Original Message -----
> >> > From: "Alexander Svensson" <alexander@svensson.de>
> >> > To: "DNSO General Assembly" <ga@dnso.org>
> >> > Sent: Wednesday, July 24, 2002 3:17 AM
> >> > Subject: [ga] FYI: WLS Vote of Transfers Task Force
> >> >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > From: "Philip Sheppard" <philip.sheppard@aim.be>
> >> > > >In preparation for the NC discussion and vote on the final report of
> > the
> >> > Transfers task force on the Wait List Service referral, please see below
> > the
> >> > result of the internal vote of the task force on their report. (Edits
> > for
> >> > clarity are mine.)
> >> > > >Philip.
> >> > > >
> >> > > >----------------------------------
> >> > > >I. Recommendation 1: To deny the WLS:
> >> > > >
> >> > > >A. RGP The ICANN board move with all haste to implement and actively
> >> > enforce the
> >> > > >proposed Redemptions Grace Period for Deleted Names policy and
> > practice
> >> > > >Yes: ccTLD, ISPCP, GA, NonC, IP, gTLD, Registrars, BC
> >> > > >Accepted by all
> >> > > >
> >> > > >B. WLS and agreement. The ICANN Board reject Verisign's request to
> > amend
> >> > its agreement to
> >> > > >enable it to introduce its proposed WLS.
> >> > > >Yes: ccTLD, ISPCP, GA, NonC, Registrars, BC
> >> > > >No: IP, gTLD
> >> > > >6 YES 2 NO
> >> > > >
> >> > > >C. WLS trial. The ICANN Board reject Verisign's request to trial the
> > WLS
> >> > for 12 months.
> >> > > >Yes: ccTLd, ISPCP, GA, Registrars, BC
> >> > > >No: gTLD
> >> > > >Abstain: NonC, IP
> >> > > >5 YES 1 NO 2 ABSTENTIONS
> >> > > >
> >> > > >I. Summary Recommendation to deny the WLS:
> >> > > >Yes: ccTLD, ISPCP, GA, NonC, Registrars, BC
> >> > > >No: IP, gTLD
> >> > > >6 YES 2 NO
> >> > > >
> >> > > >II. Contingency recommendations in event the Board rejects the TF
> > prime
> >> > recommendation.
> >> > > >Should the ICANN board not accept the policy recommendations noted
> > above
> >> > > >and grant Verisign's request for a change to its agreement and a 12
> > month
> >> > > >trial of its WLS, we would alternatively recommend that WLS be
> > approved
> >> > with
> >> > > >conditions:
> >> > > >
> >> > > >A. RGP. The introduction of WLS is dependent on the implementation
> > and
> >> > proven
> >> > > >(for not less than six months) practice envisaged in the proposed
> >> > > >Redemption Grace Period for Deleted Names policy and practice and the
> >> > > >establishment of a standard deletion practise.
> >> > > >Yes:ccTLD, ISPCP, GA, NonC, IP, Registrars, BC
> >> > > >No:gTLD
> >> > > >7 YES 1 NO
> >> > > >
> >> > > >B. Deletions. Several Constituencies remain concerned that a standard
> >> > deletion practise
> >> > > >be established and implemented. Some TF members believe that this
> > could
> >> > be
> >> > > >considered separately from WLS.
> >> > > >
> >> > > >(CHOICE OF ONE OF THREE):
> >> > > >
> >> > > >1) Standard Deletion practise should be established at same time as
> > WLS
> >> > and
> >> > > >implemented before WLS.
> >> > > >Yes: ccTLD, ISPCP, GA, Registrars, BC
> >> > > >5 YES
> >> > > >2) Standard deletion practise should be established, but need not be
> > in
> >> > > >place before
> >> > > >WLS is implemented.
> >> > > >Yes: IP, NonC
> >> > > >2 YES
> >> > > >
> >> > > >3) Standard deletion practise should be considered separately.
> >> > > >Yes: gTLD
> >> > > >1 YES
> >> > > >C. Information/notice. (CHOICE OF ONE OF TWO).
> >> > > >
> >> > > >C. 1. The WLS include a requirement that notice be provided by the
> >> > Registry
> >> > > >(through the registrar) to the existing registrant of a domain name
> > when
> >> > a
> >> > > >WLS option is taken out against that registrant's domain name.
> >> > > >Yes: GA, NonC,
> >> > > >2 YES
> >> > > >
> >> > > >C. 2. Information should be available to the incumbent domain
> >> > > >name holder when a WLS has been put on the name.
> >> > > >Yes: ccTLD, ISPCP, IP, BC, .Registrars
> >> > > >Abstain: gTLD,
> >> > > >5 YES 1 Abstain
> >> > > >
> >> > > >D. Transparency. The WLS include a requirement for full transparency
> > as
> >> > to who has placed
> >> > > >a WLS option on a domain name and the registrar that actions the
> > option.
> >> > > >Yes: ccTLD, ISPCP, GA, NonC, Registrars, BC
> >> > > >No: IP
> >> > > >Abstain: gTLD
> >> > > >6 YES 1 NO 1 Abstain
> >> > > >
> >> > > >E. Cost. WLS should be cost based, consistent with previous
> >> > considerations for
> >> > > >approval of Registry services by the ICANN Board.
> >> > > >Yes: ccTLD, ISPCP, GA, , Registrars, BC
> >> > > >Abstain: IP, gTLD, NonC
> >> > > >5 YES 3 Abstain
> >> > >
> >> >
> >>--------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> > >
> >> > > --
> >> > > 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
> >> > >
> >> >
> >> > --
> >> > 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
> >>
> >> --
> >> Dan Steinberg
> >>
> >> SYNTHESIS:Law & Technology
> >> 35, du Ravin phone: (613) 794-5356
> >> Chelsea, Quebec fax: (819) 827-4398
> >> J9B 1N1 e-mail:synthesis@videotron.ca
> >> --
> >> 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
> >>
>
> > --
> > This message was passed to you via the ga-full@dnso.org list.
> > Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> > ("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
> > Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Best regards,
> William X Walsh <william@wxsoft.info>
> --
> Save Internet Radio!
> CARP will kill Webcasting!
> http://www.saveinternetradio.org/
>
>
> --
> 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
>
>
--
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
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|