Brands, TLDs, and Private Ownership (Was:Re: [wg-c] GTLD Strawpoll)

["Kevin J. Connolly" <CONNOLLK@rspab.com>]

Readers should not lose sight of the fact that the fallacy of
composition is invoked here by Mr. Rutowski.

That is, microsoft.com has a strong connection to the
Microsoft Brand.  Therefore, Mr. Rutkowski argues,
.com should be recognized as an NSI brand.

That is formally the fallacy of composition:  attributing to
all domain names that which is true of some.

By extension, Mr. Rutkowski's argument could support the
proposition that since the "." (i.e., the "Unnamed" Root of
the DNS) is part of NSI's brand and under NSI's dominion and
control, NSI owns the root and can do whatever it pleases.

Of course, were it to do so, it would no longer have a colorable
claim to the antitrust immunity that the US District Court accorded
it in PGMedia v. NSI.  But if this is not true of the root zone, why
should it be true of the TLD zones?

On the other hand, SLD zones are governed by a different rule,
because (as RFC 1034 recognized) those zones are delegated to
private parties for their own use.  

Whether this gets tagged with the label "ownership" or not is actually
unimportant.  Every species of ownership is actually a bundle of rights.
I own an automobile, but that does not carry with it the right to drive
it on Fire Island National Seashore.  I own a home, but that does not carry
with it the right to manufacture solvents, glue, vitriol or high explosives
therein.

I have a set of well-known and identifiable rights stemming from the delegation
to me of "cybersharque.com."  I don't care whether you call them ownership
or not:  they are exclusively mine, I can sell them, pledge them, use them to
sell software, pornography, or legal information, &c.  But I also would never 
suggest that this zone delegation gives me any rights beyond those conferred
when the zone was delegated to me.

Likewise, NSI currently has a set of well-known and identifiable rights stemming
from the delegation of .com.  It just does not follow from that delegation that NSI
has rights in excess of those that were delegated to it.  The idea that NSI already 
has the right to hold .com in perpetuity is simply offensive.  It is indistinguishable 
from a steward pretending to own the property with which he is entrusted.

KJC

<yada>

>>> "A.M. Rutkowski" <amr@netmagic.com> 08/18/99 10:11AM >>>
Hi John,

The branding approach benefits everyone and comports
most closely with Internet's existence as private
shared network resources.  It may also be the only
approach that would pass judicial scrutiny.

It's also entirely possible to have the two approaches
coexist.  For example, the F.401 root exists right now.
It is a public resource/trust system.  There are gateway
arrangements between the two.  There is no reason that
it couldn't be merged directly into the existing or
a modified DNS.

Microsoft, I'm sure regards MICROSOFT.COM as its brand
and it's right to maintain a DNS zone resolver for all
hosts tagged using that domain name.  The ownership
rights here get fuzzy, but these are always real world
problems.

This actually works out particularly well for existing
ccTLDs and users of those domains, because they also
retain those brands.  Arguably, even for CORE for its
exclusive TLD brands, it works out to its member benefits.

>ANY large
>company out there would jump at the possibility of having its brand as a
>TLD, and not have to add messy bits on the end.

So who are you (individually or collectively) to tell them
they don't have the right to do that on a shared private
user network?  Many may well continue to prefer their
COM brand name, others may not, most will probably do
both.

The challenge here is not to have our pet personal
world order prevail upon the world, but to find an
arrangement that accommodates the views, rights,
and legal systems of as many parties as possible -
with an acceptable process for accommodating the
rest.

cheers,



--tony 

**********************************************************************
The information contained in this electronic message is confidential
and is or may be protected by the attorney-client privilege, the work
product doctrine, joint defense privileges, trade secret protections,
and/or other applicable protections from disclosure.  If the reader of
this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified
that any use, dissemination, distribution or reproduction of this com-
munication is strictly prohibited.  If you have received this communi-
cation in error, please immediately notify us by calling our Help Desk
at 212-541-2000 ext.3314, or by e-mail to helpdesk@rspab.com
**********************************************************************