Re: [Re: [ga] GoDaddy:

["Richard Henderson" <richardhenderson@ntlworld.com>]

Fair point to a degree Elliot!

I wasn't trying to connect ICANN to the specific patents.

I do, however, assert that ICANN has tended to support the IP lobby and
afford it a status and priority (for example, in its Sunrise provisions for
New TLDs) that lends credence to the view that ICANN puts corporate
interests generally (and US interests specifically) ahead of other parties
with legitimate claims to determine the way the DNS is administered. US
interests are protected (at a convenient distance) through the quasi-policy
making effected by ICANN, and through ICANN's accountability to DoC.
Corporate interests, and the interests of the DNS supply industry
(registries and excellent registrars like your own), have - in my view - a
disproportionate voice in the ICANN universe, compared to the interests of
ordinary internet users (sometimes labelled 'at large'). ICANN showed its
disregard for the at large constituency when it resolved to expel the
elected representatives from its Board.

It has shown doubtful commitment to consumers and ordinary internet users,
in the way it fails to be responsive to objective and informed concerns
(when these are awkward), and its inaction when the DNS supply industry
abuses ICANN agreements and processes. The ordinary internet user may be
left with the impression that there is a cosy accommodation of IP, registry,
and registrar constituencies - and a self-perpetuating clique of parties who
protect their own interests while overlooking the interests of the vast
majority of internet stakeholders who should matter most of all : the
hundreds of millions of ordinary internet users.

I'm not sure I was trying to identify a 'nexus' in the snap patent thread :
I was just picking it up, because it seems to further demonstrate a view of
the DNS as "something to be made a profit out of" - a view which seems to
extend to ICANN and its policies. Primarily, policy-making and the
administration of the DNS should not be driven by parties intent on making
profit, but by stakeholders who simply want to "use" the DNS and have a
right to do so (setting aside the digital divide, of course).

Don't get me wrong. I use Tucows resellers more than any other registrars,
and I like and respect the service I receive (hence my choice). I value the
many registrars of integrity and the service they provide and I need.

But I regard the realm of expiring domains as a world resource which
everyone should have equal access to, and I dislike *one* company gaining
any kind of monopoly which will result in them exploiting that monopoly to
charge exorbitant fees for a commodity which they themselves may then hold
to ransom.

It's interesting how much cheaper many expiring domains are if you buy them
(for example) through Dotster's "Namewinner". Admittedly, that may not be so
if you are going for a rare name, but most expiring names sell very cheap
through them. I like the variety of models, which offers both consumer
choice and competition.

Having said that, I personally would favour a Landrush style release of
expiring domains, with a minimal price, paid retrospectively by consumers if
they successfully register a particular name. In short, I believe registrars
should often "get out of the way" of the process, instead of inhibiting it,
making profit from it, or in any way taking advantage through their position
in the supply chain. The DNS should exist "for the sake of the consumer" :
NOT "for the sake of the DNS supply industry".

Having acknowledged some outstanding registrars of integrity, trying to make
an honest living like the rest of us, I think you would agree that there are
also some appalling registrars who demean your industry and seriously damage
the interests of ordinary consumers. I have cited extensive and detailed
examples of registrar corruption (including one registrar still operating
under your Tucows banner) and appealed to ICANN to uphold its own agreements
and address the standards of businesses it endorses (accredits) to the
public.

ICANN has shown a very laissez-faire attitude to the situation.

With regard to Snap patents, though ICANN is not involved in these
applications, it creates the climate and culture where the DNS comes to be
seen as a commodity whose suppliers are protected while the consumer often
seems abandoned.

Yrs,

Richard Henderson

----- Original Message -----
From: Elliot Noss <enoss@tucows.com>
To: Richard Henderson <richardhenderson@ntlworld.com>; <ga@dnso.org>;
<discuss-list@opensrs.org>
Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2003 7:41 PM
Subject: RE: [Re: [ga] GoDaddy:


> Richard:
>
> I am missing something. How do you connect ICANN in any way to these
> patents? In addition, IIRC, ICANN has only tabled, not endorsed the WIPO2
> proposals. Where is the nexus here?
>
> Regards
>
> Elliot Noss
> Tucows inc.
> 416-538-5494
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Richard Henderson [mailto:richardhenderson@ntlworld.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2003 1:20 PM
> > To: Michael D. Palage; John Berryhill Ph.D. J.D.; Elliot Noss; Andy
> > Gardner; ga@dnso.org; discuss-list@opensrs.org
> > Subject: Re: [Re: [ga] GoDaddy:
> >
> >
> > Very witty Michael, but what I find weird is that the same culture that
> > claims to promote the free market and competition, is also the
> > culture that
> > tries to infringe the rights of others to compete, through the
> > burgeoning IP
> > lobby and the attempt to "own" through patents, and keep others out of
> > legitimate competition. If this was done in the interests of the common
> > good, then there might be some sympathy, but the culture is driven by
> > corporate greed and the desire to "lock out" others and stop them from
> > competing.
> >
> > What I find sad is that ICANN - in its administration of the world's
DNS -
> > has such a propensity to embrace the predators at the expense of the
> > consumers, and condone the "annexing off" of language, ideas and the
DNS,
> > instead of protecting an open market. It is absolutely obvious that
access
> > to domain names - in this case expiring domain names - should not be
> > constrained by one entity claiming a monopoly of access. The case for a
> > patent in this specific case implies an assumption that a
> > corporate interest
> > has the right to prevent others from offering similar services and
similar
> > access to this element of the DNS.
> >
> > The widespread perception is that ICANN is merely an
> > agency/satellite of the
> > United States, working in the interests of big business and
corporations,
> > and protecting the ability of the US to exert controls over this
worldwide
> > resource. Such a hijacking of this resource is offensive to those who
> > believe that the Internet and the DNS belong to a far wider
> > community, much
> > of it excluded from effective decision-making in the ICANN Boardroom.
> >
> > John Berryhill, of course, relies for his reputation upon a certain
> > detachment and objectivity in such matters : but they are
> > certainly matters
> > which merit close scrutiny.
> >
> > Richard Henderson
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Michael D. Palage <michael@palage.com>
> > To: John Berryhill Ph.D. J.D. <john@johnberryhill.com>; Elliot Noss
> > <enoss@tucows.com>; Andy Gardner <andy@navigator.co.nz>; <ga@dnso.org>;
> > <discuss-list@opensrs.org>
> > Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2003 5:36 PM
> > Subject: RE: [Re: [ga] GoDaddy:
> >
> >
> > > Here are some additional questions that I would like to propose to the
> > list.
> > >
> > > Question #1:
> > > On what date does John Berryhill stop posting material to the list
> > > concerning this subject matter. The significance of this event
> > is that is
> > > the date John is likely to be retained by a client in this
> > matter. Having
> > > gotten to know John over the years, he would never engage in
> > such a public
> > > discussion if he was representing a client because of the potential
> > ethical
> > > considerations that it would raise.
> > >
> > > Question #2
> > > When John goes silent, who is the client that has retained his
services:
> > > SnapNames; VeriSign; Doster; TUCOWS; or some other registrar(s). This
is
> > the
> > > question that I find most interesting because John probably
> > does have the
> > > biggest inbox of prior art on the subject matter.
> > >
> > > Mike
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: owner-ga@dnso.org [mailto:owner-ga@dnso.org]On Behalf Of John
> > > > Berryhill Ph.D. J.D.
> > > > Sent: Monday, April 14, 2003 10:21 AM
> > > > To: Elliot Noss; Andy Gardner; ga@dnso.org; discuss-list@opensrs.org
> > > > Subject: Re: [Re: [ga] GoDaddy:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > From: "Elliot Noss" <enoss@tucows.com>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > John, are you sure about 12/99? I thought it was 2000 as well.
> > > >
> > > > If you take a look at the first paragraph of the application,
> > it states:
> > > >
> > > > "[0001] This application is a continuation of and claims priority
> > > > from U.S.
> > > > Provisional Patent Application No. 60/245,102, filed Nov. 1,
> > > > 2000, and U.S.
> > > > Provisional Patent Application No. 60/248,341, filed Nov. 13, 2000.
"
> > > >
> > > > There are several things going on here.  First of all, a US patent
> > > > application can claim the filing date of an earlier-filed
provisional
> > > > application, so long as the regular application is filed within a
> > > > year of the
> > > > provisional.  That was done here.
> > > >
> > > > There were two provisional applications filed in November 2000.  We
do
> > not
> > > > know at this time to what extent those provisionals may or
> > may not have
> > > > adequately supported the claimed material of the later US
> > > > applications.  But
> > > > for the purpose of focussing efforts productively, it is
> > conservative to
> > > > assume that the support was there.
> > > >
> > > > So, that assumption provides the pending application with an
> > > > effective filing
> > > > date of November 2000.
> > > >
> > > > Now, there are a couple of categories of things that qualify as
prior
> > art.
> > > > One category would be to show that the invention was known and
> > > > used by others
> > > > prior to the invention thereof by the applicant.  However, the date
of
> > > > invention is not objectively knowable on the basis of evidence
> > > > available to
> > > > us.
> > > >
> > > > The most reliable category of prior art are things that were in
> > > > public use,
> > > > published, or on sale more than one year prior to the effective
> > > > filing date
> > > > of the application.  That critical date is objectively knowable
> > > > to us at this
> > > > time, and that date is November 1, 1999.
> > > >
> > > > Additionally, everyone ought to know that during prosecution of a
> > > > US patent
> > > > application, anyone connected with the application (the
> > > > applicant, the owner,
> > > > etc.) has a duty to submit copies of relevant prior art
> > > > information of which
> > > > they are aware.  There's no duty to go out and look for stuff,
> > > > but assuming
> > > > they are reading this list, then they would do well to submit
> > copies of
> > > > relevant archives that are posted here.  This will help them obtain
a
> > > > stronger patent, as will any attempt to submit material to the
> > > > patent office
> > > > at this time, since they will be the only ones involved in arguing
> > around
> > > > such material and/or amending the claims ever so slightly to avoid a
> > > > rejection based on such material.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > 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
> > >
> > >
> >
>

--
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