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

[Phil King <yofelipe@excite.com>]

The details can't be hammered out here, we'd wind up with the kind of result
we're trying to get away from, hand over an incomplete tool for someone to
misuse.  But the idea need to be taken from the wg and run to a conclusion
as a separate item, new wg?  work from the site proposed?  I don't know
enough about "nuts and bolts" to suggest in detail.  It needs time to put
solid thought into a workable form

---------original post -------
On Sat, 30 Dec 2000 00:53:07 -0400, Peter de Blanc wrote:

>  While I support the idea of an Individual Domain Name Holder
constituency, I
>  do not agree with the use of wg-review forum/list to get into the details
of
>  how it might be organized, or any other level of granularity on the
subject.
>  
>  We need to keep this list tightly focused.
>  
>  peter de Blanc
>  
>  
>  -----Original Message-----
>  From: owner-wg-review@dnso.org [mailto:owner-wg-review@dnso.org]On
>  Behalf Of Chris McElroy
>  Sent: Friday, December 29, 2000 11:50 PM
>  To: Jefsey Morfin
>  Cc: wg-review@dnso.org
>  Subject: Re: [wg-review] 11 [IDNH] individual domain name owners, Report
>  requested by Members of the WG-Review
>  
>  
>  
>  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.
>  
>  
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  


Yo, Felipe (I, Phillip)
Phil King
Butte America
(The Richest Hill On Earth)





_______________________________________________________
Send a cool gift with your E-Card
http://www.bluemountain.com/giftcenter/