Re: [wg-review] [DNDEF] short quizz
Well at last we have some interesting stuff gathered here! On 18:54 07/02/01, Miles B. Whitener said: Thank you for your compliments. Registrar/registry do not give but register names. The are indeminified from registering them. They are not to accept the registration and the resolution. The technical and publishing components are identical. No. The technical is registration. Registration is private business to the registry. Claiming that if I register a DN I prevent someone else from getting it is true, but the other party had equal rights and possibilities to get it first. Publishing is using. No one prevent you to use a TM as a code name for a project. Using it in publishing may be illegal. The creative and intellectual property components are outside the realm of all of this. There already exist plenty of laws about use of names -- the Internet, and specifically the DNS is just another publishing/advertising means. This is partly true if labels are considered (as by the UDRP today which actually looks only at the SLD part). Partly because no one consider the classes. a) only TL registered in online services classes should be considered, b) the fact that the names are used on the interenet and not elsewhere are obvious part of the intellectual environement. UDRP claims for much more than existing laws, which is detrimental to the other TM holders of the same TM. The real purpose of TM is to avoid confusion. That the same type of product (class) cannot be confused. The way "domain names" are understood is widely different. The law can order one party to transfer use of a name to some other party, and has done for a long time before DNS existed, but the registry/registrar should absolutely not involve themselves in that area. True. Execpt to testify that the law is ill used in most of the cases as it favors one demand over all the others. Let assume I have a "Ford" TM for a kind of computer. Mr. Ford register Ford.com. I cam second asking for the DN I do not get it. Now Mr. Ford starts selling cars. The car builder asks for the DN. Let assume they never tried to register, but they will get it while I should have had it. One thing absolutely muddying the waters is the very existence of _global_ TLDs. All propertly law is done in layers -- local, national, international. You miss the key one which is classes. There's no way to arbitrate the use of a name directly under COM between two approximately equally "worthy" (and this is none of the business of DNS management) parties that are in separate countries. CC TLDs are a large part of the answer to this, but in any case it's not the DNS operator's problem until ordered by an appropriate court to change the registration of a name (in a way that compromises no rights of the operator). No the ccTLDs are not more the answer. 1. there is no US ccTLD really active and most of the problems come from US companies as the TM obligations are more important there and more complex witht the different States laws. 2. the ccTLDs have to deal with the classes the same way. 3. If you take the case of France where the NIC accepts only DN by the company name and TM as .tm.fr they still have the problem. And have not solved the conflicts between company names. 4. The only solution is millions of TLDs after the DN has been clearly defined to know what is a TLD for the WIPO (this is why I use myslef the term ULD - upper level domains - to qualify the Register part).
actually far more complex. The semantic, the sound, the graphisms, the history are concerned. The first point is what is technically the DN: what is registered in the DNS files or what is seen at the screen. Same Chinese, Japanese, Korean ideogram with similar sound are not registered with the same ascii characters in any of the current accepted transcriptions. Second point is usual words. Case "boadacioustatas.com", "tata" is slang in USA, is "tant" in baby language in several countries, is slang for "gay" in others, but is the leading motor manufacturer in India. Semantic. Sex site owner lost "boadacioustatas.com" but was not even chalanged for "boadacioius-tatas.com" he still owns. "Misocroft.com" was opposed while is a very good name: miso:anti croft:domain = anti cybersquatting site...
this is the most controversial issue. Resolution must be defined. Resolution into another DN (aliases) or choice by a third party (access engies, search engines)... Look at the Yahoo! case with the French justice. Nobody understood that this is first a DNS problem, that Yahoo operates as a "yahoo! zone" server resolving the "virtual domain" "nazi" into some sites.
There are many many other ways. AntiSquatting act is about part of it. When a stock option of a company jumps 15% because they say they have decided to have a ".com" is a other way. What about the commercial slogan "the life in .com" and the right of NSI to call themselves the "dot com company".
NO! We created DNs concept long before and the DNS was only created because domain management became too complex.
1) The IP addressing scheme is the only real stuff, right. Now the same IP address may be accessed by thousands of DNs and the same DNs may access several IP addresses. 2) you have not to confuse the way we currently generally use the DNs and the DNS with the reality of the DN scheme. If you reread initial RFC (still in use.. Sandy quoted one) domains are absolutely not what we make of them today. (see Sandy's responses below). I have proposed a TLD for formats of DNs instead of DNs... In conformance with RFCs I run TLDs using Member Names... The DNS system is about domains. That domains have names. Domain names have never been defined and considered as such. This is brand new and there are several new layers in this (mnemonics, TMs, freedom of speach, arts, etc.. are only a few of that layers) ...
Yes. This is correct Sandy. Miles is right when he explains you the way the DNS works in most of the cases. My technical points are only about the way it may also works (add-on, aliasing, dynamic Domain Names, etc...).
The words "authoritative" and "delegated" are pure invention of the DNS development team and have NO legal meaning. A lot of confusion come from this wording. Actually the zones are built from decision of the owners. The DNS is an elegant solution to make a tree from a bunch of leaves but here leaves exist before the tree. You do not buy a computer because you have an Internet plug, you plug your computer into the Internet.
absolutely true. This is the key of the system.
true. But you can do it yourself on your computer. You only have to add an IP address (of an augmented.root server) to have all the sudden hundredth of new TLDs.
then he can delegate silly.little.bubba.com. But by RFC bubba.com is the domain and little, etc... are different computers. so the Domain name of silly.little.bubba.com is "bubba.com" and the WIPO will consider it as being only "bubba".
True. But domain names have acquired an independance because hey are not used that much as to describe DNS domains but to describe (sub) IP access. When we started with the nets: there could be scores of IP addresses on one machine and a domain was a group of machines, so a domain could include thousands of IP addresses. Now one single IP address may provide access to thousands of Virtual machines with one or several "domain name".
Well! ;-) Since there is no doublt, may be could you tell us what it is? I wait for that for 23 years....
I give up. When will it be possible to understand that: - domains are a way of grouping machines and IP addresses - names are word calling something and as everything domain may wear a name - "domain name" is something by itself which has a set of function. The problem is that we coined that word in using "domain" and "name". Initially we called the "international user names" than "international host names" and when wanting to be really accurate I named them "multinational target names" (1985).
You right, but for the WIPO songbird is what they will conider. Example: barcelona.com
This is the current problem with the WIPO. Some wish that "ipc" like "domain name" are under UDRP.
No according to RFCs... IPC is a machine of the songbrid.com domain.
This is the reading of Miles. I accept it is common reading for domain-name. But it is untrue. "songbird.com" is the name of the domain.
No. This is the common reading domain-name. But the domain is still songbird.com
the domain is still songbird.com. I do not knwo that IPC is a third level domain including several machine on the Songbird Inc. campus.
Yes. That does not mean that Kent owns IPC (who knows) but that Kent host the (virtual) IOC machine under his gateway.
Do you still think so? ----- As a general comment, if you read until here ..., the problem is that DNs are only a small evolution of a naming convention. It is part of the EDI (electronic data interchange) addressing scheme the UN incorporated after the war in the general addressing scheme (posts, telex, fax, telephone, data...). Now, to make the things simple: the complexity of the DNs is nothing when compared with what we have ahead with the IP addressing scheme. Jefsey
|