Re: [wg-review] [DNDEF] short quizz 9,10

[Jefsey Morfin <jefsey@wanadoo.fr>]

On 17:19 08/02/01, Miles B. Whitener said:
> > most people believe there are, and that the UDRP needs
> > adjustment of some sort.
>
>I guess I think the adjustment in this case would be more like a
>deletion.

Dear Miles,
you may be right. You may be wrong. Please read the UDRP document
in detail. It is a very good procedure to use if you have a problem when
renting a car, or geting tired by a list perturbator, etc... anything both
parties may understand ... UDRP is not so bad, twisted, OK but nobody
is perfect.

Now, the problem is the UDRP can apply to many things (actually
to everything which is defined in the dictionnary) but not to the DNs.
Because DNs are not defined in the dirctionnary and not defined
ine the UDRP (while some other words are).

Because - based on the old RFCs - people want to confuse Postel's
names of old domains with Domain-Names. Reaching totaly absurd
conclusions (when considering the meaning of the words).

iCANN and UDRP system allows registries to adopt UDRP with
their own additions. I accept the UDRP system provided that the
plaintif provides a DN definition first. If the defender may show that
a DN is not what the plaintif claims it to be, the case is obviously
based on a misunderstanding.

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