DNSO Mailling lists archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

RE: [nc-deletes] Minutes - Conference Call, November 15

> Good point. If we wanted to recommend a registry-level re-allocation
> solution, we might be sufficiently general about the precise
> implementation to give individual registries freedom to license the
> Snapnames technology or develop their own solution. I would hope that
> the patent isn't so broad that it preempts all possible implementations.

It is still a pending application, so there is no way of knowing how broad
it might eventually be.  Of course, if anyone designs anything to avoid the
pending claims, then the claims may be amended during prosecution of the
application in order to try to capture different implementations, so long as
there is adequate support in the specification.

If there were an appropriate technical coordination body for the domain name
system, then they would do what other such bodies do, and develop an open
licensing policy for participation in accordance with the technical
standards maintained by the organization.  For example, contracts to provide
services under the coordinating body's authority would normally include a
provision by which licensing of key technologies is a condition of the
contract.  However, the domain name system continues to lack a technical
coordinating authority.

Perhaps the intellectual property constituency might have some expertise in
the patent area.

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>