Re: [wg-review] 11 [IDNH] individual domain name owners, Report requested by Members of the WG-Review

["Chris McElroy" <watch-dog@inreach.com>]

Chris McElroy aka NameCritic

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jefsey Morfin" <jefsey@wanadoo.fr>
To: <wg-review@dnso.org>
Sent: Friday, December 29, 2000 9:49 AM
Subject: [wg-review] 11 [IDNH] individual domain name owners, Report
requested by Members of the WG-Review


> This is a first list of questions, please add/comment on the relevance.
At
> this stage we do not look for debate.
>
> The plan is to listi these questions for further reference on the temporay
> http://idnh.org site by tomorrow (this temporary site should become
> http://idnh.dnso.org  as soon as the constituency process progresses).
>
> - should the DNSO/IDNH be a direct GA of individual domain name holders
> (with potentially millions of Members)? or should it be an union of
> services, associations, etc.. of individual domain name holders on a model
> similar to the DNSO/BC? Or should it be organized in cooperation with
local
> NICs or TLDs as TLD/national chapters? or other formulas?

Some discussion on each would help.
>
> - would it be appropriate to set up a temporary action team for this
> subject list with the Members of this WG-Review who seconded this motion?
>

Yes and I would like to participate.

> - would there be exsiting organizations interested in IDNH issues which
> could be provided a link on the temporary http://idnh.org site ?

http://www.OPIW.org
>
> - what are the priorities of DNSO/IDNH Members in term of domain name
> management, allocation stability and legal protection:
>
>     - in reference to ICANN
That they stop overstepping their authority. Reviewing business plans is
among the ways they have done that in considering new tlds. If someone can
point me to where in their charter they were asked to do that I'd appreciate
it. There is more but I'll stop there.
>     - in reference to UDRPs
That arbitration stop allowing a much wider protection for trademarks than
is allowed by law. For a reference and study on the matter go to
http://istweb.syr.edu/~mueller/study.html
>     - in reference to Registries and ccTLDs
>     - in reference to Registras

Again that their rules not reflect that Trademarks have such a domainance
over domain names. Cases where the domain name was filed before the
trademark have been found for the trademark owner and in some cases where
the trademark had only been applied for and not even granted yet. The rules
you are forced to sign when registering a domain name are ridiculous. I say
forced because it is difficult to do business without a domain name and in
order to get one you are forced to sign the agreement. That gives them the
ability to block me from doing business if I don't agree with every clause.

>     - in reference to national laws to be proposes

Don't get the question

>     - in reference to which other topics?

Freedom of Speech is one that comes to mind. Generic and Geographical Domain
Names being taken away from the domain holder and considered an
infringement. Finding Cybersquatting and losing names in arbitration because
the person has not built a website there. That isn't part of an agreement
when you file the name, yet WIPO finds that is the basis for revoking a name
and giving it to someone else. If I file a DBA, it doesn't require or only
allow a certain time frame in which to start my business. That is strictly
up to me. To find that someone has no legitimate interest in a name because
they haven't built their website yet is stepping on individuals rights. It's
very clear they support the Corporate interests only and individual domain
name holders should have an equal constituency to all of the others
combined. By that I include individuals from all countries. The individual
is as important as the organized coalitions that now have power. That should
be recognized by anyone.
>
> - would it be a priroity to request a formal technical and legal
definition
> of what is a domain name in order to know what we are talking about in
> contracts, laws, rules, UDRP, IP, copyrights, freespeach, etc...

Absolutely.
>
> - would it be advisable to consider this subject list as the kernel of an
> IDNH constituency? and to report it as such to the BoD, the Staff and the
NC?
>
I'd like to hear more.

> - would it be of interest to have this individual domain name holders
> subject list to work together/in synergy with the future @large Study
Group
> to better define the common interest issues (DNSO) and the protection of
> the individual business interest (@large).

Yes
>
> - would it be of interest to request from BoD and Staff to organize a
> constitution meeting of the DNSO/IDNH constituency in Melbourne?

Yes
>
> - would it be of interest to request from the Staff the creation of a
> idnh.dnso.org mailing list to better prepare such a meeting?

Yes
>
> - evolution of the DNS system is made through the CRADA agreement and the
> root development through the SSRAC. Would it be of interest to ask the
> responsibles of these programs to dialog with the individual domain name
> holders for them to better understand the business opportunities which may
> come from novative uses of the DNS system.

Yes. Any new information is helpful.
>
> - would it be of interest to initiate a similar dialog with the different
> groups and interests involved in multilingual domain names? In particular
> would be intersting to investigate a common study with the MINC which
> mainly focus on muli-lingual domain name issues, in particular in he area
> of the application of TM protection to foreign languages and sounds?
>
Yes!

> - would it be opportune for an individual domain name owner constituency
to
> ask for a financial contrinbution? Would some organizations want to
sponsor
> such a constituency? Under which terms?

Yes to the first question and yes to the second. As far as the third it
would depend on the Sponsor.


>
>
>
>
>
>
>