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

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

Ok, just a stab here by a newby. Why not this group decide on the issues
that need to be resolved, then make the recommendation for groups on each
topic, instead of asking for an extension of time here. The topics can be
defined by this group or the problems pointed out, however you want to look
at it, and can be done easily within the original time allotted IMO. If this
was done quickly then groups could be formed to make recommendations on each
issue independent of each other to the DNSO or to a central body elected
here to work out how they can be resolved into one set of recommendations.

Just a thought.

Chris McElroy aka NameCritic

----- Original Message -----
From: "Phil King" <yofelipe@excite.com>
To: "Peter de Blanc" <pdeblanc@usvi.net>; <wg-review@dnso.org>
Sent: Saturday, December 30, 2000 5:18 PM
Subject: RE: [wg-review] 11 [IDNH] individual domain name owners, Report
requested by Members of the WG-Review


> 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/
>
>