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

["Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <mcade@att.com>]

I reread the two postings below -- I don't believe that it is true "that any
large company" would jump at the chance to have their brand as a TLD.  I
can't invision a world of online communications where large companies
"operated" TLDs for commercial purposes... that would mean that companies
would be competing with each other to "host" their down stream business
customers; if you used both BT and AT&T, and Microsoft, and IBM, and CISCO,
you would a) chose one b)register in all? 

Secondly, the ISPs of the world already operationalize the kind of offering
which seems contemplated here.... through their email services.  They
provide important and legitimate business services which businesses and
consumers/individual users, and non profits, (who did I leave out?)
government users, alike all utilize.  I keep seeing ISPs left out of many of
the discussions as a significant player.  They play a vital and important
role in the support and services they provide to businesses and users
alike.....Millions of the users that everyone says they care about are the
customers of thousands of ISPs, who coach them, support them, and trouble
shoot for them when they encounter problems on the Internet. 

There are other considerations to why I don't support the idea of "companies
owning a TLD", like differing rules (so, the "rule  of the forum" would
apply?); if so, consumers and businesses alike would never know which TLD
had what "rules"; so they would have to read the fine print....boy, THAT
will slow down the online experience! 

Doesn't make any sense to me in a global world when we want to faciliate
communications and interoperabilty, not divide and limit or segment...

This isn't (I hope we all agree) a new version of the California gold rush.



-----Original Message-----
From: Kevin J. Connolly [mailto:CONNOLLK@rspab.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 18, 1999 10:55 AM
To: jbroom@manta.outremer.com; amr@netmagic.com
Cc: wg-c@dnso.org
Subject: Brands, TLDs, and Private Ownership (Was:Re: [wg-c] GTLD Straw
poll)


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
**********************************************************************