[wg-c] forwarded for Judith Oppenheimer

[Jonathan Weinberg <weinberg@mail.msen.com>]

>From: "Judith Oppenheimer" <joppenheimer@icbtollfree.com>
>To: "'Harald Alvestrand'" <Harald@Alvestrand.no>, <wg-c@dnso.org>
>Cc: <wg-b@dnso.org>
>Subject: RE: [wg-b] Re: [wg-c] telephone numbers in domain names.
>Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2000 22:47:29 -0500
>
>Harald, extend that to its (unwelcome) possibilities ... having laid the tm
>characteristic onto phone numbers, imagine trademark owners extending that
>right to alpha versions of telephone numbers subscribed to others ...
>
>I can too easily envision trademark owners UDRPing unsuspecting POTS line
>subscribers in order to hijack all the alpha variations of their marks ...
>its a stretch, but considering some of the UDRP interpretations and
>rulings, I take nothing for granted.
>
>> The telephone number space is the reality, and all spaces
>> that mirror it,
>> whether e164.com or e164.arpa, are its shadows
>
>Maybe, maybe not ... folding numbers into the DNS creates a new hierarchy
>... remember Richard Sharkey's warning ...
>
>>Date: Wed, 20 Oct 1999 14:29:30 -0500
>>To: e164-to-ip@l...
>>From: Richard Shockey rshockey@i...
>>Subject: Re: scope of the ENUM WB
>
>...>...we have a whole pot load of other issues to deal with such as
>>what is the effect of putting billions of numbers into the existing
>>DNS system? Security, authorization, number ownership and control.
>>
>>I won't even try to comment the Layer 10 issues of the ITU, ESTI,
>>EMA/VPIM etc.
>
>Judith
>
>Judith Oppenheimer, 212 684-7210, 1 800 The Expert
>Publisher, http://www.ICBTollFreeNews.com
>President, http://www.1800TheExpert.com
>FREE 800/Domain Classifieds, http://ICBclassifieds.com
>Domain Name & 800 News, Intelligence, Analysis
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Harald Alvestrand [mailto:Harald@Alvestrand.no]
>> Sent: Saturday, November 25, 2000 8:44 AM
>> To: Judith Oppenheimer; wg-c@dnso.org
>> Cc: wg-b@dnso.org
>> Subject: RE: [wg-b] Re: [wg-c] telephone numbers in domain names.
>>
>>
>> At 09:26 24/11/2000 -0500, Judith Oppenheimer wrote:
>> >Actually, I did have a problem with the business model re
>> its policy plans:
>> >
>> >         "iTAB seeks authority from ICANN ... over the core
>> policies that
>> > define
>> >the utilization of ".tel" as a shared resource for bridging
>> the addressing
>> >gap between legacy telephone numbers and emerging standards of the
>> >Internet-Telephony industry."
>> >
>> >         "Following the current practice with all Internet top-level
>> > domains, the
>> >registration of E.164 numbers in the DLS will be managed by a single
>> >trusted "Registry". It is assumed that this exclusive
>> Registry function
>> >will fall under the regulatory control of ICANN."
>>
>> I had problems with this plan too, but perhaps in a different
>> sense than you.
>>
>> I believe that letting customers claim rights to a number in
>> e164.com when
>> they have lost all rights to the same number in the real
>> telephone number
>> space will lead to much confusion and no gain.
>> The telephone number space is the reality, and all spaces
>> that mirror it,
>> whether e164.com or e164.arpa, are its shadows (to misuse
>> Platon's imagery).
>> Having shadows that linger when the reality is gone benefits nobody.
>>
>> But I believe Pulver knows what it's getting into, and its failure to
>> maintain its shadows properly in e164.com will be a matter
>> between them and
>> their customers, not a problem for the Internet as a whole.
>> Therefore, I may be concerned, but not worried.
>>
>> IMHO, of course.
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Harald Tveit Alvestrand, alvestrand@cisco.com
>> +47 41 44 29 94
>> Personal email: Harald@Alvestrand.no
>>
>>
>
>