Re: [wg-c] There is no "consensus"

[Milton Mueller <mueller@syr.edu>]

I understand the point you are making, but I think your point is based on a
misunderstanding. I think you are confusing registry and registrar functions.

There IS no portability of a name across registries, regardless of whether the
registry is shared or exclusive. A domain name has to be a unique entry in a
master zone file. There is one and only one authoritative zone file.

Under the shared model, if I register "milton.web" I can choose any of a number
of registrars. All that means is that when I *renew* the name, I can choose a
different company to transmit a few bytes of data to the registry to enter
information in its database. I can NOT take the name to a different
database--indeed, under the shared model there is only one database available,
and all registrars have access to it. Thus, can I take the name "milton.web" to
another registry? No.

Under the proprietary model, if I register "milton.web" the registry will most
likely be the same corporation as the registrar. It is possible that other
companies will be authorized to act as registrars under contract, but to
simplify things let's just assume that I have no choice of registrar. Thus, I
must renew the name using the same company. Can I take the name "milton.web" to
another registry? No.

If I want to change registries, I must select another name in both cases.
The portability situation is the same in both situations. Competition for the
right to *enter the registration in the database* is just not that significant,
in my opinion, although it has some minor benefits.

The intellectual property claim to the zone files under .web has nothing to do
with the issue of portability of my name. What it does mean is that no other
company can register names in dot web without the proprietor's permission, and
that the company has an exclusive right to administer the zone files for dot
web. By trademarking dot web as an identifier, a proprietor would be claiming
that limited form of exclusivity. He/she would not be claiming a property right
over any use of the term "web," any more than BT's many trademarks give it a
right to prevent Bankers' Trust from using those initials in the identification
of its company.

john.c.lewis@bt.com wrote:

> Portability is not an assured condition given the way in which various
> participants are positioning their interests.
>
> If the registry/registrar is permitted to claim or establish copyright over
> domain names then ownership by the registrant will be pre-empted. Under
> these conditions the registrant would not be able to change registry without
> breach of copyright or perhaps 'buying' his domain name from the registry,
> which is a position that I'm sure the majority of the community would wish
> to avoid.
>

--
m i l t o n   m u e l l e r // m u e l l e r @ s y r . e d u
syracuse university          http://istweb.syr.edu/~mueller/