<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
RE: [wg-review] [DNDEF] short quizz
Title:
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 >
- Yes, I agree, but there are other reasons why
it's necessary to understand what it is registrar/ registries are giving
out and we may find registrar/registry welcoming the
clarification.
< The technical and publishing
components are identical.[>
- No they're
not. The technical component is the physical means by which to publish, (the
*object*). The fact that the means to publish exists is not the same thing as
doing it, (the *act*).
< The creative and
intellectual property components are outside the realm of all of this.>
- I disagree.
DNSO cannot produce an IDNDEF by selectively choosing components. Yes, it can
decide which it is willing to bring within it's realm, but first it has to
define the whole. If you have to describe a basket of fruit, you cannot just say
it's a banana. As you may know, land subdivision works by defining the
property as a whole, then the parcel that is being taken away and finally, the
parcel that is left. These are necessary steps to provide checks and balances to
avoid misunderstandings about what exactly is being given
away.
< There already exist plenty of laws
about use of names -- the Internet, and specifically the DNS is just another
publishing/advertising means.>
IANAL (I am
not a lawyer), but I would rather say DNS is an unique means of distribution
that cannot make agreements by territory, only on a global scale. This is new
territory (excuse the pun).
< 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.>
I am inclined
to agree with you, but it is not their choice to the extent that they are party
to the contract which forces the Registrant to agree to UDRP, to which many
object, hence they are involved in this issue and at the front
line.
[< One thing absolutely muddying the
waters is the very existence of _global_ TLDs. All propertly law is done
in layers -- local, national, international. 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).>
Yes, but it's
not just Courts, it's also UDRP, so DNSO is involved. It is
my understanding that the purpose of a civil arbitration process is to arrive at
a decision which two opposing parties can each agree would
be the likely decision of the court if the case were to go
so far as a trial and is binding. It is also the duty of the civil proceeding to
try to reduce the burden on the courts and therefore I view
the evolutionary paths taken by UDRP and the Courts as
inextricably interwoven, ideally working together to find common ground which
all can agree is fair, giving equal opportunity to
petitioner and defendant, whatever their respective resources. Maybe this is too
idealistic, but I don't believe the US Courts seeks to
undermine the authority of the UDRP, and I do believe they would be more
reluctant to overturn UDRP decisions if consistency in UDRP
judgements had been demonstrated, which so far has not been evident.
I think it's a fair statement that ICW and in
particular, ICANN, is more familiar with domain name issues than most judges
in most jurisdictions the world at this time . While
I don't have the answer to the gTLD problem you describe, it
is appropriate for the DNSOs to review difficulties such as this with due
diligence and as a means to that end, to make
recommendations for the IDNDEF, which
could then be useful to the UDRP
and hopefully, supported by the
Courts .
Sincerely,
Joanna
----- Original
Message -----
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.
2) Technical Component - the
physical means by which the domain name resolves into a URL on the internet
(as per your description)
3) Publishing Component - the
act of exploiting the domain name by distributing creative content in the
public domain using the internet.
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".
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.
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.
DNS "zones" are "delegated".
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. 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 ...
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".
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.
There's
absolutely NO DOUBT as to what an Internet domain name is
right now
...
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".
----- 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.
>
> > - is it
"songbird.com"
>
> Yes.
>
> > Now what is IPC
domain name under: http://ipc.songbird.com ?
> > -
"ipc"
>
> No.
>
> > -
"ipc.songbird.com"
>
> Yes.
>
> > -
"ipc.songbird"
>
> No.
>
> > -
"songbird.com"
>
> No. That's Kent's, not IPC's.
>
>
> Now same questions with the alias http://ipc.dnso.org
rerouted
> > to the actual
IPC site.
> > - "ipc"
>
> No.
>
> > -
"ipc.dnso.org"
> Yes.
>
> > - "ipc.dnso"
>
No.
>
> > - "dnso.org"
> No. Not IPC's.
>
>
> - "ipc.songbird.com"
> Yes.
>
> > -
"songbird.com"
> No. Not IPC's.
>
> >
Jefsey
>
> But why on Earth are you asking? I'd have thought the
answers
were so obvious
> as to not be worth discussing.
>
--
> 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
>
--
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
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|