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

["William X. Walsh" <william@dso.net>]

Wednesday, August 18, 1999, 7:54:57 AM, Kevin J. Connolly <CONNOLLK@rspab.com> wrote:

> 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?

This one is simple (though I do not agree with Tony's position here
vis a vis NSI).  NSI doesn't control or "own" the "." zone, and lacks
the authority to make entries in it without authorization.


--
William X. Walsh - DSo Internet Services
Email: william@dso.net  Fax:(209) 671-7934
Editor of http://www.dnspolicy.com/

(IDNO MEMBER)
Support the Cyberspace Association, the 
constituency of Individual Domain Name Owners 
http://www.idno.org