[wg-review] [DNDEF] a few comments

[Jefsey Morfin <jefsey@wanadoo.fr>]

Joop, Sotiris, Greg,

Great!
And what about the ones who coined the domain name concept?
Do we own the world? If yes may could we embark into a Tresor hunt?
My own date is sept 1978. Mail to Italcable and to Bundespost.
Other contenders Bob Trehin, Joe Rinde, Mike Rude, Paolo Popescu.

Now what about "members name", "partner name", "generic name",
"formated name", "dynamic name", "telephone name", "mail name"...
and "user name".
Jefsey


On 09:14 04/02/01, Joop Teernstra said:
>At 16:03 2/02/01 -0500, Sotiropoulos wrote:
> >
> >
> >Eric Dierker wrote:
>
> >> <snip>
> >> Courts, universities, the U.N., the USG can't define it in one
> >> language.  It is like defining Theos.
> >> <snip>
> >
> >I disagree Eric.  I think we can define it, and we must do so ASAP.  I
> >believe a domain *is* Property.
> >In fact, I believe a domain *is* Intellectual Property, the
> >ICANN-sanctioned UDRP makes this an ipso facto
> >statement (albeit indirectly).  The question I have, is simple:  "Who
> >does the property belong to by right?"

Well, Sotiris, what a lot of unassumed statements in a few lines!

- yes we can define it. A definitition is a description, but neither a
   law nor a belief. You can make many laws or creeds over a definition.

- only the definition of what a DN is may help you determining wich
   parts of the DN may relive from IP.

- the UDRP is a stand-alone procedure applied by contract to
   DN which per se has nothing to do with DN (please read the UDRP
   document and come back withtheir definition of the DN).

- that ICANN has not sanctionned but created the UDRP as legal (? ;-) )
   protection does not change anything to the nature of the DN. It
   only lead people to believe they are proected by it while they are not.

As soon as any one claims there is a property in the DN, my lawyer
will claim a chare in it (as several people of my Tymnet network culture
and many others of Vint/Jon's and others from Berkley's culture). A
royalty of $1/year per DN would be good enough: I am ready to make a
Trust with Joe, Bob and their wifes, Jon's heirs, Vint familly and a few
others. Good money for our heirs 50 years+ after we are all dead (this
is why I quoted Paolo: he only rose the problem but he is probably
the youngest ... long before Internet peole came with a saxon semantic).

> >In other words, does it belong to someone who invented or coined it? or
> >does it belong to somebody else?
> >The registration of a domain name can be compared to creation.  What is
> >created (i.e. a domain) did not
> >exist before this act.  The service aspect of the act itself is provided
> >by ICANN, but not the actual *creative*
> >keystrokes.  Not to mention, the knowledge and foresight that went into
> >such creation.
> >
>
>I subscribe to this point of view. The act of Naming is a creative act. The
>DN is its Autor's  Intellectual Property.

Joop, the first intellectual property was to create the DN concept. Then
possibly to develop the DNS system (but there are alternatives).

>A Domain that is developed into a well connected and well-known website and
>becomes a Brand, is certainly also its owner's economic property.
>
>What concerns me is that by trying to "define" a Domain Name now, we are
>forgetting that both the service and the control over Domain Names are
>still very fluid processes.

The target is not to define a Domain Name but to define what is a domain name.
There is a big difference between saying that a given Road Sign indicates
New-York and saying what a road sign may be...

>"Defining" a DN (as in "legal definition")  is therefore not only a
>semantic process, but also a political one.
>Courts the world over, will do the defining for us. Legislators will fill
>in the blanks. We have to be part of this process.

Like leaving courts and laws saying the skyis yellow, brown, green, etc...

>Registries derive a great deal of power (and income) from the totally
>arbitrary idea that DNames need yearly "refreshing" against payment of a fee.

This is an arbitrary statement. The operations of a DN cost money.
There are enough cases of:
- multy-years subscriptions
- free registrations
- new developments
to show that what you quote is just a given situation.
I acknowledge ICANN wrongly endorsed it because of a real definition
of the DN not pemitting to fully grasp what is at stake..

>Therefore, registries and registrars will not readily "define" DN as
>property of the registrant.

They have nothing to do in the process. It is either consensus
or law. It is acknowledgement of the real nature (as per the definition
of the DN, if that definition permits to deduct it) or a legal decision.

>Registrants, on the other hand, looking at the contract they are forced to
>sign with the registrar, feel very insecure with the idea that their Domain
>is not really *theirs* to own, but is treated as a kind of rental property
>from which they may be evicted via UDRP or due to non-timely payment of the
>yearly fee.

True, this is why there must be a contract. What is currently signed
has absolutely no legal value since it is related to something not
defined, not even described as a good or a as service and said to
be in a moving environment which therefore may change its very
nature daily (which bythe way is the case).

>The current situation, however, may change as Registrants will get their
>representation in ICANN and their input in the registry contracts.

Sorry, but I fail to see what it may change.
- that peripheral actors may change their relations
- that a dwindling part of the concerned bodies
- themselves without any established legitimacy even by the USG
do what ever they want has no impact.

Even in considering the ICANN's world only, that 2.5% of the TLDs
organize themselves in a way or an other has no legal impact. We
are here in law and international treaties. The number and the
sovereignty of the participants is to be considered, not their
relative weight.

>This is the process that needs to be speeded up.

As a general review on this.

I am afraid that this process is under scrutiny now by the USG
and by most of the Govs. because the DNSO failed the task of
providing clear definitions, policy statements, credible procedures.

And we all know that this failure only comes from the NC being
elected by "constituencies", people fighting to protect seats. We
should stop considering GAC as a set of blinded fools.

Should a few persons on this WG-Review had not been confused
in not accepting the difference between the working (SIG/Centers
of Interest) and the voting (constituency)  parts of  BC, ccTLD,
IDNH, DNDEF, etc...  as initially initially introduced by Karl and
supported by some Govs. we would not have this huge thread
upon us. I am afraid the days of the "American Joke" have flown
("AJ" is a private GAC Member desription of the ICANN).

This is why at this stage I think we need a recess. For an effort
to quickly understand, think and respond to the mostly Govs and
to some extent large commercial groups effort we see every
where now. And find new net-democracy protection solutions.

Greg, I now see this WG-Review has been under professional
attack to be confused and unproductive. I feel very sorry for all
the efforts so many people spent here.

Jefsey

--
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