Re: [ga] New Thread - Registrar Reform.

[William X Walsh <william@wxsoft.info>]

Tuesday, May 21, 2002, 6:43:33 AM, todd glassey wrote:

>     1)    WHOIS is not satisfactory as a statement of who owns what IP.

But of course, the whois is not supposed to be a statement of who owns
intellectual property.

The whois is about objects.


>     o-    The concept that you could "stand in line for a name's
> availability" is ludicrous as well. Just because I do not renew a domain
> that was filed at one time with a certain registrar does not mean I am
> abandoning that specific IP. Just that my relationship on that domain is not
> being renewed with that Publications Agent, and that's all it means.
> Anything more is a different issue. This is why the incorporation of a
> WhoWas concept might make this easier to deal with.

You assume that because you own some intellection property, that you
have a sole right to the use of a string characters in a domain name.

The law doesn't give you those rights, why should the dns?

>     4)    And finally there is no plan in place from ICANN for what to do
> when a Registrar fails and takes their whole customer base down. The victims
> being the customers here. So what is the scenario for recovering from
> Registrar failure then?

See Data Escrow.


-- 
Best regards,
William X Walsh <william@wxsoft.info>
--
Save Internet Radio!  
CARP will kill Webcasting!
http://www.saveinternetradio.org/

--
This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html