Re: [wg-review] [DNDEF] short quizz

["Miles B. Whitener" <mbw@i-theta.com>]

I can't read everything you wrote below right now, but:

Registration and publication are identical from the perspective of the DNS.  DNS policy is all we are talking about in this group.  There's lots of time-tested law bearing on use of names.  DNS policy should not try to create new law.

DNS names should be registered only on a first come, first served basis.

If somebody has a complaint about who got to use a name, they should take it first to the one that got the name, and if they can't work it out, then consider working it through the legal system.

 

----- Original Message -----

From: Jefsey Morfin

To: wg-review@dnso.org

Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2001 5:51 PM

Subject: 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.
However, my opinion is that the registrar/registry should only give names out first come, first serve, and be absolutely indemnified from any disputes between conflicting parties both wanting the same name. 

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).

----- Original Message -----

From: Joanna Lane

To: Miles B. Whitener ; Sandy Harris ; Jefsey Morfin

Cc: wg-review@dnso.org

Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2001 12:37 PM

Subject: RE: [wg-review] [DNDEF] short quizz

Miles,

Thank you. Your description of technical aspects is clear and very helpful.  However, any internet domain name seems to comprise three distinct elements. These are:-

1) Creative Component -  the concept behind the language that makes up the written title that gives rise to intellectual property rights owned by one or more person or persons and or entity(ies). These may or may not be subject to a registered trademark.

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...

2) Technical Component - the physical means by which the domain name resolves into a URL on the internet (as per your description)

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.

3) Publishing Component - the act of exploiting the domain name by distributing creative content in the public domain using the internet.

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".

I'm sure you can do better for the one sentence summary description under item 2.

Thanks,

Joanna

Miles B. Whitener wrote:-

The kind of answers given below might not be very helpful.

An Internet "domain" only has meaning in the context of DNS

"zones".

NO! We created DNs concept long before and the DNS was only
created because domain management became too complex.

You either have to understand this or trust somebody that does

understand it.

DNS is the Domain Name System of the currently existing public IP

Internet.

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) ...

Unlike IP addresses, which are to a large extent physically

distributed all the way down to end user networks, DNS names are

a weak concept and can change easily.

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...).

DNS "zones" are "delegated".

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.

The "root" zone (embodied on a few DNS server machines) has

delegated COM, NET, ORG, EDU, MIL, INT, ARPA, and all other "top

level domains" (TLDs) to various other server machines.  The

"root" servers are "authoritative" only by  convention and

agreement.

absolutely true. This is the key of the system.

 Someplace upstream of you, a DNS server machine

operator has a file with the IP addresses of the root servers.

If your operator changes those, then you have a totally different

worldview.  Everything could change.  COM might not exist any

more ...

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.

When you register a COM subdomain, you or your network operator

has been "delegated" a zone.  In this case it's called a

second-level domain.  So if you have bubba.com, bubba is both a

zone and a domain.  It also happens to be a SUBdomain of COM.

If you want to try to sell SUBdomains under bubba.com, you can

try.  Those also will be zones or domains.  If somebody can

convince you to do this, you can DELEGATE little.bubba.com to

somebody.  They then completely control the "little" SUBdomain

under the "bubba" subdomain under COM.  All are zones, all are

domains.  They are all SUBdomains of something.  COM is a

subdomain of "root".

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".

Internet "domains" only have existence and meaning in the context

of the DNS, which is only one of MANY services that run on the

public IP Internet.

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".

There's absolutely NO DOUBT as to what an Internet domain name is

right now ...

Well! ;-) 

Since there is no doublt, may be could you tell us what it is?
I wait for that for 23 years....

If I wanted to, I could create some new naming service and

advertise it.  I could take registrations for names.  I could

even call them domains.  But that would not make them Internet

"domains".

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).

----- Original Message -----

From: "Sandy Harris" <sandy@storm.ca>

To: "Jefsey Morfin" <jefsey@wanadoo.fr>

Cc: <wg-review@dnso.org>

Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2001 9:05 PM

Subject: Re: [wg-review] [DNDEF] short quizz

> Jefsey Morfin wrote:

> >

> > Just a test.

> > Kent (since I use Kent's post) has kent@songbird.com as a

mail name.

> > I asked Sandy who did not respond.

>

> I don't recall seeing that.

>

> > What is Kent's Domain Name?

> > No theory asked, just please repond on an example.

> >

> > Is it:

> > - is it "songbird"

>

> No. That's a component, not a full name.

> "com" is also a component, but isn't his.

You right, but for the WIPO songbird is what they will
conider. Example: barcelona.com

> > - is it "songbird.com"

>

> Yes.

>

> > Now what is IPC domain name under: http://ipc.songbird.com ?

> > - "ipc"

>

> No.

This is the current problem with the WIPO. Some wish that
"ipc" like "domain name" are under UDRP.

> > - "ipc.songbird.com"

>

> Yes.

No according to RFCs... IPC is a machine of the songbrid.com domain.

> > - "ipc.songbird"

>

> No.

>

> > - "songbird.com"

>

> No. That's Kent's, not IPC's.

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.

> > Now same questions with the alias http://ipc.dnso.org

rerouted

> > to the actual IPC site.

> > - "ipc"

>

> No.

>

> > - "ipc.dnso.org"

> Yes.

No. This is the common reading domain-name. But the domain is
still songbird.com

> > - "ipc.dnso"

> No.

>

> > - "dnso.org"

> No. Not IPC's.

>

> > - "ipc.songbird.com"

> Yes.

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.

> > - "songbird.com"

> No. Not IPC's.

Yes. That does not mean that Kent owns IPC (who knows)
but that Kent host the (virtual) IOC machine under his gateway.

> > Jefsey

>

> But why on Earth are you asking? I'd have thought the answers

were so obvious

> as to not be worth discussing.

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