[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [wg-c] GTLD Straw poll
Actually, I agree that Ross has hit the nail on the head here. One key
issues that keeps cropping up (and which none of us ever resolve) is
exactly this one. I am under the impression tht I own my own name. But,
under trademark law, one doesn't own the trademark ( the US PTO does and
the trademark holder is licensed the name under conditions that are only
subtly different from ownership). If we look carefully, and considering
NSI policies over the years, it appears that we only own our DNS names
under the same sort of license.
There are two sorts of model that fit current DNS practice; One states
that we own our names and pay a registry (NSI) to publish them under a
TLD. For this we pay a regular fee. The other states that we do not own
our own names and rent them from the TLD registry. If you can think of a
third, that fits current practice, I'd be real interested.
To my mind, this is the key question that should be polled. Many of us,
working for introducing new gTLDs, are off the former opinion. Those
opposed seem to be of the latter, but this is indeterminate. There are
many key concepts that are derived from these opposing views. Both camps
seem to be inconsistant, however. In this, Ross is right, there should
be no equivocation here. One can not own, in one instant, something
which one rents, in another instant. Neither the law nor reality works
that way.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-wg-c@dnso.org [mailto:owner-wg-c@dnso.org]On
> Behalf Of Ross
> Wm. Rader
> Sent: Tuesday, August 17, 1999 9:56 PM
> To: Kevin J. Connolly; wg-c@dnso.org; A.M. Rutkowski
> Subject: Re: [wg-c] GTLD Straw poll
>
>
> "Which of these are public resources
> subject to a public trust...and why?"
>
> Let's play DA on this one...
>
> None.
>
> Why do I pay an annual fee for them?
>
> We either have to suck or blow on these - especially in the
> current NSI
> gTLDspace...these are either records we own, or records we rent - not
> both...
>
> -RWR
> -----Original Message-----
> From: A.M. Rutkowski <amr@netmagic.com>
> To: Kevin J. Connolly <CONNOLLK@rspab.com>; wg-c@dnso.org
> <wg-c@dnso.org>
> Date: Tuesday, August 17, 1999 7:45 PM
> Subject: Re: [wg-c] GTLD Straw poll
>
>
> >Hi Kevin,
> >
> >>So, likewise, when, in the gTLD-MoU, we speak of the Top
> Level Domain
> Name
> >>Space being imbued with a public trust, we are excluding from our
> >>discussion the
> >>namespace below that level. Of course, I believe that 99%
> of the readers
> >>understood
> >>this sort of distinction before I drew it in such detail, but Mr.
> >>Rutkowski seems to
> >>be off on a tangent of distraction again.
> >
> >I'm sorry you find this distracting. It seems fundamental
> >to me, but I may be wrong.
> >
> >Obviously, at least the GAC believed the notion extended throughout
> >the hierarchy and beyond, considering they adopted the finding that:
> >
> > "the Internet naming and addressing system is a public
> > resource." Operating Principles, GAC, Berlin, May 1999.
> >
> >Furthermore, the actions of ICANN itself clearly imply a flow
> >down of their exercise of authority that extends well below
> >just the TLD zones.
> >
> >Lastly, since these are just zones in a distributed database
> >pointing among eachother to ultimately reach an authoritative
> >record to resolve a complete domain name, the levels are somewhat
> >irrelevant for purposes of dealing with the issues. For example,
> >what if the European Union pushes through its EU domain, and it
> >establishes a semantic structure at lower levels?
> >
> >Indeed, Lottor's data clearly shows the irrelevancy in
> >the latest zone data. All of the following domains have more
> >than 100,000 records. Which of these are public resources
> >subject to a public trust...and why?
> >
> >
> >2ld lucent.com 4,723,690
> >3ld outland.lucent.com 4,723,669
> >2ld aol.com 1,749,709
> >3ld ipt.aol.com 1,736,704
> >2ld uu.net 1,550,991
> >3ld da.uu.net 1,504,729
> >1ld com 1,105,370
> >2ld ans.net 924,301
> >3ld dialup.ans.net 890,593
> >2ld ac.uk 752,728
> >2ld ne.jp 725,963
> >2ld home.com 688,191
> >2ld co.uk 679,703
> >2ld bbn.com 622,360
> >3ld saturn.bbn.com 598,470
> >2ld psi.net 544,523
> >2ld af.mil 492,447
> >2ld ac.jp 492,164
> >3ld pub-ip.psi.net 481,133
> >2ld navy.mil 424,208
> >2ld army.mil 409,223
> >2ld or.jp 406,662
> >2ld att.net 406,484
> >3ld dial-access.att.net 402,580
> >2ld airdata.net 388,629
> >2ld rr.com 355,531
> >2ld edu.au 333,749
> >2ld dialsprint.net 300,376
> >2ld ibm.net 299,812
> >3ld demon.co.uk 274,355
> >2ld ca.us 269,260
> >3ld wave.home.com 262,798
> >2ld hinet.net 252,414
> >2ld co.jp 240,707
> >2ld com.au 232,532
> >2ld mindspring.com 222,056
> >3ld dialup.mindspring.com 221,213
> >2ld pacbell.net 217,335
> >2ld com.br 214,411
> >2ld mediaone.net 212,177
> >2ld net.tw 207,720
> >3ld k12.ca.us 205,509
> >3ld us.ibm.net 201,218
> >2ld cdc.com 197,180
> >2ld net.au 196,308
> >2ld dec.com 185,559
> >2ld mn.us 174,130
> >2ld edu.tw 165,966
> >3ld k12.mn.us 161,907
> >2ld netcom.com 161,122
> >2ld ad.jp 159,336
> >3ld ix.netcom.com 153,805
> >
> >
> >--tony
>