Re: [ga] Re: WLS call follow-up

[Gary Osbourne <gro@direct.ca>]

At 04:36 PM 21/05/02 -0400, Dan Steinberg wrote:

>Basically the way I see things is that the WLS
>proposal is essentially IP neutral. I fail to
>see how it helps anyone with respect to IP unless
>you insert some tribunal or UDRP or other 'judge'
>in the process when selecting someone to be in the
>queue for a particular domain.

So I register qwertyadsfjsdfjsf.com (it's just an example,
and still unregistered through some fluke of fate, and/or
oversight of the speculators). I put a couple of years of
work into it, submitting it to search engines, getting my
online buddies to link to it, printing it on my business
card, putting it in the yellow pages, and just for good
measure I put the answer to everything on there (which is
43 as it happens, but let's keep that between us for now),
yet it isn't my intellectual property, right?

>I think that there are enough issues with WLS as is
>without introducing irrelevancies and things we are
>not qualified to deal with.

Perhaps you could list the necessary qualifications
before I take the trouble to post again. I'm travelling
and am on a slow motion pay by the hour dailup and must
couch my words accordingly.

>I both reject Chuck's argument that its better for the
>IP constituency as well as the argument that a domain
>holder could lose out or feel compelled because of IP
>issues.

I can't speak for those other weasels, but if someone
snatches qwertyadsfjsdfjsf.com out from under me, I'll
just have to register (so to speak):
www.geocities.com/qwertyadsfjsdfjsf/
and I'll be so pissed at this loss of face I'll sue:
1. my original registrar for screwing up
2. ICANN, for their policies, or lack of same
3. anyone else I can find an address for
Hey, lookie here: synthesis@videotron.ca
and in my bailiwick too.

>Were it true that WLS helps IP holders,
>snapnames would already have had everyone
>in existence as a client.

Sorry, I don't get out much. How does one
existential entity find this snapnames? Is it:
http://www.snapnames.cc/
my TLD of choice? Apparently not. Is it at
RealName "snapnames"? Nope, that feeds me
popunder ads, but only till the end of June,
then who knows? Erm, what was the question?

>The simple solution to concerns about losing
>your intellectual property, which were always
>around before WLS (which only makes it easier
>for someone to grab it *once* you have lost it)
>
>...is....to....
>...remember to renew! This is not rocket science.

Oh sorry, I registered it using an ISP addy that folded,
or I registered it using a web-based email client that
died, so I never got the notification. So, I'll sue
them too, but seeing as they aren't around any more,
perhaps *you* still have some money. Ka-chingggg!

I didn't know that this concept was around before
the WLS, that one lost trademark protection (even
north of the border) because of a choice of email
providers. Will...wonders...never...cease?

>And...as a fall back...to use a hypothetical example,
>should Dan Steinberg use WLS to get att.com when
>someone at ATT falls asleep...ATT (as they always did)
>has recourse under UDRP, lanham act, etc. If the
>hypothetical "Allied Telesyn Technologies" grabs that
>name...using WLS or any other existing means...
>then...too bad for the people who forgot to re-register.

I didn't forget. I had a contract with an ICANN
accredited registrar, and they screwed up. Hence my
proclivity, if not propensity, for suing all and sundry.
And BTW, where exactly in Canadian legislation does one
find this lanham act thingie?

>I do not see this as an issue in the context of WLS.
>Any risks that exist already existed before WLS. WLS
>is merely a way to find out in advance who would get
>it, no more.  It just gets someone potential preferential
>treatment in the event of a deletion, nothing more i.e.
>if ATT makes a mistake...it just decides who gets *lucky*,
>and does nothing to enhance the possibility of ATT making
>a mistake in the first place.

It does, however, enhance the possibility of Ver$ign
making a mistake as, if I renew my name with my
existing registrar it costs somewhat less than $35
(actually considerably less than $35), but hey, I'm
just the registrant, that forgotten factor in the
ICANN (and apparently the GA rep's) equation. Whereas
if I am someone attempting to leech off someone else's
work (one might even call it one's intellectual property
if one could get a definition of that term), I am only
too happy to pay that $35 because Veri$ign's dog ate
someone else's homework. So the leech, who could just
as easily use:
1qwertyadsfjsdfjsf.com
or
qwertyadsfjsdfjs.com
as
qwertyadsfjsdfjsf.com
except for *my* intellectual property (awaiting definition)
and Veri$ign, for screwing up my re-registration
and ICANN, via its tithe
and you, if you're into brownie points
get lucky, and I, even if I have the answer to everything,
lose my connection to others who have seen me in a search
engine, or read my business card, or yellow page listing...
and, don't tell me, you wonder why the internet bubble
burst, right?

>pure and simple I think it is as irrelevant to WLS
>as today's weather in idaho.

Well, I've got my own private Idaho here, I am known
in trade as qwertyadsfjsdfjsf.com and now you are
sullying my good name by putting up a protozoa pr0n
site at that pointer due to Veri$ign not understanding
the specification for https. Okay, I'll sue you all.

>I was disturbed by people making all sorts of claims
>that this is an IP issue when it isnt, especially
>people who obviously are not experts on intellectual
>property at all.

Like me, apparently. Here I thought it was the property
of my intellect. Now I learn it is a protection racket
run by some offshoot of the USG and its apparently endless
army of lackeys. So I'll sue everyone involved, but seeing
as you're the only one within reach...

>Does this help?

Absolutely. I didn't much care for those IP numbers.
When Paul Mockapetris brought in intuitive domain
names it made internet navigation much easier. When
dropsquatters made the DHS couter-intuitive I became
somewhat confused. I can again sleep well at night
knowing that you have ruled it, on balance, as a
Very Good Thing (TM) for Veri$ign and ICANN. -g

--
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