Re: [IFWP] RE: Trademarks vs DNS

[Einar Stefferud <Stef@nma.com>]

Hi Antony -- I need to challenge some of your points;-)...

>From your message Tue, 16 Feb 1999 12:33:43 -0500:
}
}>
}> On Tue, 16 Feb 1999, Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote:
}>
}> > NOW we go back up a few thousand feet to the primary question, do TLD
}> > charters serve a purpose?
}>
}> Why should they when they can not be enforced?
}>
}> el
}>
}[AVC] - Even though they are unenforceable, they might well serve a purpose.
}A set of rules governing use don't have to be applied beforehand, although
}there should be an element of this.  A set of rules can also serve to
}disqualify any protest when a rule-breaker is thrown out.
}
}For instance, suppose you had a chartered TLD, .ISP, which had a set of
}restrictions intended to make the domain one for internet access providers
}only.  Suppose there were a set of initial automatic tests *before* the
}domain was delegated to an applicant, for instance you had to have some
}functional nameservers and some functional mail servers.  Suppose there were
}also some non-tested restrictions, for instance you had to have at least 50
}dial-up customers.
}

Chicken and Egg problem.  How does an ISP get to the point of having: 

1.  at least 50 dial-up customers;
2.  some functional nameservers;
3.  some functional mail servers;

Without first getting a DNS Name?

You must enable people (entities) to get DNS names which will not
require being changed after becoming qualified.  Have you ever
witnessed a company changing their DNS name shortly after getting
started?  Would you like to be our pioneer to try out this scheme?

}
}The domain would be open to illegitimate registrations by non-ISPs, because
}there are people with name- and mail servers who aren't ISPs.  However, if
}it got to be a problem, you would still have the rules, and you could
}(following a complaint, for instance) eliminate an illegitimate
}registrations following an investigation.
}
}A charter doesn't have to be 100% effective, or 100% enforceable, to have
}some value.
}

This appears to me to mean that we are only kidding, and that people
who are willing to bend the rules will get away with braking them, and
more conservative people will avoid taking advantage of this shoddy
behavior.  I think this is a slippery slope that leads to more and
more bending of rules in general.  So, why have any rules at all.

}
}I imagine the same thing would apply under .NA.  If I could convince you
}that I was a business in Windhoek, you might delegate me a name in .NA.
}Once you found out, however, that I had never set foot outside of New York,
}you might well consider it within your rights to delete my name from the .NA
}root.  There's a charter with rules that is not 100% enforceable, but there
}are sanctions after the fact that make it workable.
}

I am certain that somewhere in the .NA zone there are some rule
breakers, and it is my sense that Dr, Lisse is getting close to
abandoning his own strict .NA "charter" rules, as we speak.

}
}Antony
}
}

So, I see no harm in some regisdtries deciding to run in "charter"
mode, but also see no reason whatever to impose charter structures on
the entire DNS.

One of my reaons for sayig this is the this appears to be an attempted
cure for the "TM" conflict with DNS.  My reaction is to suggest that
we accepot this as soon as the TM industry sets up rules wher-in all
TM onwers must always accompany their TM names with the TM category in
which they are registered, when used in public.

Cheers...\Stef