Re: [wg-review] Re: dndef, 9

[Eric Dierker <Eric@HI-TEK.COM>]

Domain Names are intellectual property. They in fact are owned by the individual
domain name owner.  The term domain name holder is nonsensical, except in the sense
of using a piece of property. In that they are intellectual properties they do not
exist until created by persons. Once they exist they are owned.  There is no public
domain name. ICANN is charged with the assignment of title to the domain names.
Title to a domain name is held for periods of time and is not owned in the model of
a fee simple. When there is a dispute over title to a Domain name the rightful
owner is determined by a series of principals as set forth in the UDRP.  One can
acquire title through squatting if no one with a more valid claim challenges that
title. The laws of each country dictate the precise hierarchy of claims to title
within their own sphere of influence.

I could be convinced to change my opinion here, but not by rhetorical arguments of
what has gone before, because what has gone before lacks coherent logic and
legitimacy.

We would not be defining it had it been well defined before.

Sincerely,
Eric Webster

Jefsey Morfin wrote:

> Dear Eric, Sandy,
> A domain is a very well defined thing indeed. Comes from mathematics.
> May be Eric was thinking about defining what is a Domain Name as per
> the iCANN, DNS and UDRP.
>
> 1. as you may have noted the RFC.0920 does not define the nature of
>      the Domain Name.
> 2. you may also have noted that the RFC.0920 is a total opposition with
>      the way Internet is managed today and is going to be managed in the
>      future. Did not even thought about virtual hosts, aliases ... obviously
>      not at multi-lingual Domain Names.
>
> As most of the RFC concerning the DN management it should be rewriten.
> Simple souls though it would be the task of the DNSO. Starting with 1591.
> Simple souls though also that common sense would dictate that an
> organization established to deal with Domain Names would first publish
> a document about what it deals with... Nonsense. It first discussed ..voting.
> Siple souls though the first task of the WG-Review would be to make sure
> that we know what we are talking about. Yes indeed it did, and its Chair
> published it was the pilar for any action... but delayed it, and the next
> Chair buried it under ... constituency organization. No more voting really
> but "seat protection".
>
> On 02:14 05/02/01, Sandy Harris said:
> >Eric Dierker wrote:
> > >
> > > We are all on the same page here. Defining domain is a worthwhile endeavor.
> >
> >There's a pefectly good definition in RFC 920:
> >http://www.cis.ohio-state.edu/rfc/rfc0920.txt
> >
> >| The Purpose of Domains
> >|
> >|   Domains are administrative entities.  The purpose and expected use of
> >|   domains is to divide the name management required of a central
> >|   administration and assign it to sub-administrations.  There are no
> >|   geographical, topological, or technological constraints on a domain.
> >|   The hosts in a domain need not have common hardware or software, nor
> >|   even common protocols.  Most of the requirements and limitations on
> >|   domains are designed to ensure responsible administration.
> >|
> >|   The domain system is a tree-structured global name space that has a
> >|   few top level domains.  The top level domains are subdivided into
> >|   second level domains.  The second level domains may be subdivided
> >|   into third level domains, and so on.
> >|
> >|   The administration of a domain requires controlling the assignment of
> >|   names within that domain and providing access to the names and name
> >|   related information (such as addresses) to users both inside and
> >|   outside the domain.
> >
> > >  We cannot do it in a vacuum.  Politics and economics are involved. The
> > majority here
> > > seem to view domains as property of which the word is reflective.
> >
> >Granted, the definition above can be extended in various ways, and some of
> >the extensions have political or economic consequences.
> >
> >Do you have some argument as to why we need such an extension?
>
> Please explain sandy@storm.ca as per RFC.0920 or any other RFC
> by the way. IETF had to be taken over, we expected the DNSO to do it!
> Happily it did not!
>
> 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

--
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