RE: [wg-review] [IDNH]Membership criteria

[Roeland Meyer <rmeyer@mhsc.com>]

All of us, in the original IDNO founding group, debated this extensively.
Later, I came to the conclusion that this entire issue is dependent on
ownership vs holdership issues. Holding a name, like holding a trademark (US
law) is a very different thing than owning it. Even if, the practical
application means that 90% of the same rights accrue. That other 10% is
crucial and effects the policies that the registry is ALLOWED to implement.
This is also an issue that has been hotly debated in the ORSC (yes, I was
there).

Given:

Two registries, such that;
One registry sells names on a subscription basis, retaining ownership for
itself. The other, sells the actual ownership of the names.

The former, is almost exactly what the current situation resolves to. This
is the reason that UDRP can even work, legally. The registry can recind the
registration under terms of contract and even reassign the name elsewhere,
because the subscriber only leases rights in the name and all rights are
contractual. They are lease-holders.

The latter, makes life much more difficult for the registry. The name, and
all attached rights, are sold to the registrant. Should the registry want to
recind the assignation, they are legally prevented from doing so. They can
never use that name again, unless they explicitly buy it back. The registry
can still charge an annual fee for maintaining it on their systems, but it
is a separate maintenance fee. No, the registry doesn't have to carry it,
but they are also prevented from reassigning it without permission of the
actual owner.

These are two entirely different business-models. The product life-cycle is
different and the rates&fees also differ accordingly. I should not need to
state which is preferred by registries and which, by consumers of names.

The interesting thing is that these [two views] are not mutually exclusive.
IMHO, the fundimental difference, with TLDs, is that they are percieved to
be owned by the TLD registries. What is prblematic (and I leave this to the
legal minds among us) is how two organizations can own the same thing. Names
are not physical, they are an abstract (Intellectual Property). Evenso,
USPTO has deemed that the name, by and of itself, cannot completely
determine intellectual property rights. Yes, this means that we have a
problem with the latter case. The issue there is ownership rights
recognition.

BTW, for these purposes, a domain name is not even a string of characters,
it is a binary code, which may or maynot resolve to any given man-readable
charcter-set (ref: Internationalized DNS).

-- 
IANAL - I Am Not A Lawyer. Before taking action on anything I say, you are
encouraged to seek legal advice. 


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joanna Lane [mailto:jo-uk@rcn.com]
> Sent: Saturday, January 06, 2001 12:08 PM
> To: J J Teernstra
> Cc: wg-review@dnso.org
> Subject: RE: [wg-review] [IDNH]Membership criteria
> 
> 
> Joop wrote:-
> <Not to re-invent the wheel all over, please refer to
> http://www.idno.org/organiz.htm  Art 4.>
> 
> Thanks Joop.
> Frankly I'm disappointed by a few things in IDNO's proposal, but I
> acknowledge that much good work has been done with it also. 
> If my take on
> this is not favored by colleagues I am sorry. I'm not here for the
> popularity contest.
> 
> 4.1 Colour of Title - I disagree
> First I have a small, but important issue. The language you 
> are using is not
> plain English and very difficult to understand. If we are to 
> be consistent
> with your proposal, we would have to call this group the  
> "Individuals with
> Colour of Title Constituency"... Doesn't exactly make sense 
> or roll off the
> tongue !  I don't follow the logic of using the label  
> "Individual Domain
> Name *Holders* Constituency", then omitting to use the word 
> *holder* in the
> body of the text when referring to members and/ or their 
> criteria. Any word
> can be clarified in the definitions (as you have done in 4.3) 
> so why have
> you invented new words, (including one that has no consistent 
> spelling) when
> existing ones do the job reasonably well?
> 
> If "holder" really is not the best word (and I am inclined to 
> think that it
> is), then let's find a substitute that is commonly used. This must
> encapsulate some meaning without requiring a person to read a 
> four paragraph
> explanation to grasp the essence of what you are talking about.
> Hieroglyphics would be better that  "color of title" for the guy with
> average IQ points, IMHO.
> 
> 4.9  Non-Exclusivity - I disagree.
> A person who is a member of another constituency, and in 
> particular one who
> receives direct financial remuneration and/ or gratuities 
> from a corporate
> entity that makes its living from the internet, could be perceived by
> individuals as having a corrupting influence and therefore, 
> however eminent
> that person may be, (s)he has no place in an individuals 
> constituency unless
> invited as a guest, consultant, advisor.
> 
> It is one of life's choices whether or not to work for a 
> corporate paymaster
> and I think it's a reasonable statement to make that the 
> self-employed often
> resent being told what is in their best interests by other 
> groups who do not
> have the same values, priorities and liabilities (and visa 
> versa I would
> add). It's a source of friction that is not particularly 
> useful and given
> that it is almost impossible to disprove personal accusations 
> when it comes
> to bribes and conflict of interest issues, it will be the 
> Court of Public
> Opinion that decides the fate of both accused and accuser. 
> Therefore, I
> believe it is inevitable that the ultimate effect of this 
> rule, if passed,
> will be degenerative instability of ICANN administration that 
> could reach
> the highest levels.
> 
> 4.12 Honorary members.- I disagree
> This is setting double standards. A Member must qualify under 
> a single set
> of rules, whatever they may be, with no exceptions, or it is 
> sending mixed
> messages to both existing members and the general public. "Well known
> Individuals" is subjective in the extreme. Well known to 
> whom? Could these
> key people not contribute as guests, advisors or consultants 
> if they do not
> meet the criteria?
> 
> I have no problem with the rest of it.
> Regards,
> 
> Joanna
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --
> This message was passed to you via the wg-review@dnso.org list.
> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe wg-review" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> 
--
This message was passed to you via the wg-review@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe wg-review" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html