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

["todd glassey" <todd.glassey@worldnet.att.net>]

The WLS proposal would take something else to implement and that would be a
board of some type that assured ICANN, the registrars and the "Fair Play for
Fernando Poo Committee"  and the other components of this menagerie "that
this instance of registering this domain name did not violate the previous
IP rights of its last registrar..." and with the current system this is
impossible. Not to mention the privacy issues to contend with to meet Safe
Harbor requirements and the ensuing global privacy laws.

No WLS is a system to address mass registrations and that people let Domains
expire... For what ever reason.

Todd

----- Original Message -----
From: "Gary Osbourne" <gro@direct.ca>
To: "Dan Steinberg" <synthesis@videotron.ca>
Cc: <ga@dnso.org>
Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2002 10:45 PM
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: WLS call follow-up


> 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
>
>

--
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