Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #641
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST            Tuesday, July 31 2001            Volume 01 : Number 641

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2001 05:35:43 -0400
From: Joanna Lane <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Domain names as observed (was Tucows Response to Cochet  tiTransfer Letter)

Joanna wrote:-
<snip>
>> an original artistic and literary work. A real
>> life example of that would be "bazoomer.com", which features as the product
>> placement storyline in David Mammet's fictional film "State and Main" (BTW,
>> an excellent movie). Another example is VeriSign's own "the-bug-reaper.com"
>> commercial.  Neither of these domain names is active, and probably never
>> will be,

Kent wrote:- 
> Then they aren't really domain names.

That's one argument, but I suggest you'll have a hard time getting it past
an industry that is in the business of buying and selling illusions.
VeriSign would not agree to revoke it's own registration in favor of another
entity exhibiting whatever on the bug-reaper website, neither would it
launch a fully functioning website selling fly spray, nor drop its
advertising campaign altogether.

You are also being completely unrealistic if you expect major studios to
agree domain name registrations are off-limits except for fully functioning
film distribution and merchandising websites etc. They need access to domain
names for dramatic purposes when a script calls for it, and to hold rights
in those names as previously explained. This should be a very simple matter
to arrange compared to fake identity documents and deadly weapons, which of
course is done on a daily basis.

<snip>
Joanna wrote:-
> their purpose [bazooma.com and the-bug-reaper.com] is simply to exist in an
artistic and literary
> context as part of fictional work that is being exploited extensively in the
> public domain using other media - theatrical release, broadcast TV, DVD,
> Video etc. 
> 
> These examples, and others, may enter the public conscious without ever
> being accessible in the DNS roots or appearing on a single end user screen.
> Therefore, it's seems obvious to me that strictly speaking, it is possible
> (albeit not desireable) for a dotcom Domain name to exist and be exploited
> without any formal registrar service contract with VeriSign.

Kent wrote:-

>You are exploiting a string.  But you only have rights to the *domain
>name* if you have some intellectual property rights that you develop for
>the string -- eg, a TM.

Clear communication is a priority, so using words that provide no clue as to
what they actually mean is generally not attractive. "String" may be the
technical term, but it doesn't get the Plain English Award. Numerous
definitions are available in standard dictionaries, but none relate to
domain names. I sense that the general public would agree with the opinion
that any "string" ending with ".tld" is generally understood to be a "domain
name", even if it is unregistered and non-existant in any root. The phrase
is already in the vernacular in that respect.

Added to that, there is no way to distinguish the example.com "domain name"
from the example.com "string" by just looking at them, so it's nonsense to
give them totally different labels. I'm sure the public at large can manage
"unregistered domain name" and  "registered domain name", if that would be
more acceptable to you, but to refuse to use the term domain name in any
shape or form when referring to a .tld, simply because it may not have been
registered, is exactly the sort of confusion we should be avoiding in the
public interest.

Regards,
Joanna

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

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2001 12:00:32 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Domain names as observed (was Tucows Response to Cochet  tiTransfer Letter)

On 21:45 29/07/01, Kent Crispin said:
>You are exploiting a string.  But you only have rights to the *domain
>name* if you have some intellectual property rights that you develop for
>the string -- eg, a TM.

Until when "some IP right" resolves only to "a TM"?
This being said your position is so,so.
You right on many points but a domain name is a domain name. That it has 
not been registered makes it only more vulnerable: someone may register it 
before you do. But once registered it is still in danger: VeriSign 
mismanagement, DoS against it, UDRP, court action, bad fame, ...

We have to chose.
Either a domain name is the name of a domain (what ever the domain and the 
domain definition may have to be refined) and the UDRP system is valid 
however it does not define what a DN is. Or the DN is something special by 
itself and the UDRP system is invalid since it does not define the DN.

The only problem in having a DN understood as the name of a domain is that 
the virtual domain notion will span outside the Internet - at least as the 
AmerICANN understands it. This may jeopardize many reasonings based upon 
the idea that the Internet is something special and the DNS is a 
hierarchical data base. I am not against that.

Jefsey

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

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2001 12:32:27 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Domain names as observed (was Tucows Response to Cochet  tiTransfer Letter)

On 21:45 29/07/01, Kent Crispin said:
>You are exploiting a string.  But you only have rights to the *domain
>name* if you have some intellectual property rights that you develop for
>the string -- eg, a TM.

Since when "some IP right" resolves only to "a TM"?
This being said your position is so,so...
You are right on many points but a domain name is a domain name. Until it 
is registered it is only more vulnerable: someone may register it before 
you do. But once registered it is still in danger: VeriSign mismanagement, 
DoS against it, UDRP, court action, bad fame, ...

Now, we have to chose.
Either a domain name is the name of a domain (what ever the domain or the 
domain definition to be refined) and the UDRP system is valid, however it 
does not define what a DN is. Or the DN is something special by itself and 
the UDRP system is invalid since it does not define the DN.

The only problem in having a DN understood as the name of a domain is that 
the virtual domain notion will span outside the Internet - at least as the 
AmerICANN understands it. This may jeopardize many reasonings based upon 
the idea that the Internet is something special and the DNS is a 
hierarchical data base. I am not against that.

Jefsey

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

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2001 08:54:09 -0700
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Domain names as observed

> From: Joop Teernstra [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Monday, July 30, 2001 12:49 AM
> 
> At 21:19 29/07/2001 -0700, Roeland Meyer wrote:
> > > From: Joop Teernstra [mailto:[email-masked]]
> > > Sent: Sunday, July 29, 2001 5:27 PM
> >
> > > the function of the DNSO GA
> > > is exactly to help shaping the law, where there is 
> > > currently a barely filled vacuum.
> >
> >I strongly disagree. Trademark law has been extant for over 
> >300 years. It is well developed and fairly substantial.

> I meant to be  talking about new legislation that defines the 
> rights and 
> obligations of Domain Name Holders/Owners in the context of 
> everything they undertake in Cyberspace.
> Vis-a-vis TM holders/owners, vis-a-vis the registrars and registries, 
> creditors , ISP's, IPP's, and everybody they deal with across borders.

This is where I disagree. You are special-casing cyber-space here. This has
been a fallacy from the very start of networking. Whatever we do, in
cyberspace, reflects itself on the real-world<tm>. Cracking a host, in
cyber-space, can get you tossed in a real-world jail. Just ask the guy that
wrote the ILUVU virus. If they ever find the Code Red guy, he's gonna become
a hotel greybar resident too (for a very long time, I hope).

> National Laws can only be enforced locally. Natural Justice does 
> not  accept long-arm statutes that would force a DN owner to 
> defend his rights in a foreign court.

In the US, at least, it is customary to have that venue on the defendent's
home turf. BTW, in very large countries, like the US, traveling to a
courthouse, over 3000 miles away, is equally inconvenient. In fact, it is
easier, for me, to deal with a case in Vancouver, Canada, than Herndon,
Virginia. In both cases, I have to hire a local lawyer. The same holds true
for Encinada, MX. The largest differential expense is logistical, not legal
(considering costs, in the SF Bay Area, legal may actually be cheaper
anywhere else). The point is that, legal contention, between widely
separated parties, is a tough road, regardless of jurisdiction issues, and
there will always be jurisdictional issues between over-arching
Federal/International law and local common law. New International laws won't
change that.

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

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2001 09:06:40 -0700
From: Kent Crispin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Domain names as observed

On Mon, Jul 30, 2001 at 05:35:43AM -0400, Joanna Lane wrote:
> Joanna wrote:-
> <snip>
> >> an original artistic and literary work. A real
> >> life example of that would be "bazoomer.com", which features as the product
> >> placement storyline in David Mammet's fictional film "State and Main" (BTW,
> >> an excellent movie). Another example is VeriSign's own "the-bug-reaper.com"
> >> commercial.  Neither of these domain names is active, and probably never
> >> will be,

I interpreted "active" in this context to mean "registered", as you
appear to do as well, since you continue to use the term "registered" vs
"unregistered" below.  It makes a certain amount of sense, in fact,
since we were talking about legal issues, and the point of registration
is when the domain name gets legal status as a domain name, via the
registration agreement... 

> Kent wrote:- 
> > Then they aren't really domain names.

...so the above means "unless a string is registered with a domain name
registry, it isn't a domain name."

> <snip>
> Joanna wrote:-
> > their purpose [bazooma.com and the-bug-reaper.com] is simply to exist in an
> artistic and literary
> > context as part of fictional work that is being exploited extensively in the
> > public domain using other media - theatrical release, broadcast TV, DVD,
> > Video etc. 
> > 
> > These examples, and others, may enter the public conscious without ever
> > being accessible in the DNS roots or appearing on a single end user screen.
> > Therefore, it's seems obvious to me that strictly speaking, it is possible
> > (albeit not desireable) for a dotcom Domain name to exist and be exploited
> > without any formal registrar service contract with VeriSign.

Note carefully what you are saying above.  You are essentially making a
claim that some kind of intellectual property rights can exist in a
string that looks like a domain name -- IPRs that can in some
circumstances, presumably, have weight in domain name disputes.  This is
precisely the kind of claim that TM people are making -- strings not
registered in the DNS can have IPRs associated with them, and those
rights can have effect in the realm of domain names.

> Kent wrote:-
> 
> >You are exploiting a string.  But you only have rights to the *domain
> >name* if you have some intellectual property rights that you develop for
> >the string -- eg, a TM.

Reconsider the above statement in light of a string not registered as a 
domain name.  

> Clear communication is a priority, so using words that provide no clue as to
> what they actually mean is generally not attractive. "String" may be the
> technical term, but it doesn't get the Plain English Award.

Deal with it.  We need a term for a generalized string of characters 
such as used in a domain name.  The fact that such a term isn't 
familiar to the general public is irrelevant.

> Numerous
> definitions are available in standard dictionaries, but none relate to
> domain names. I sense that the general public would agree with the opinion
> that any "string" ending with ".tld" is generally understood to be a "domain
> name", even if it is unregistered and non-existant in any root. The phrase
> is already in the vernacular in that respect.

What's in the vernacular is not interesting.  We are discussing real
policy here, and do have to concern ourselves the distinction between 
unregistered vs registered strings.

> Added to that, there is no way to distinguish the example.com "domain name"
> from the example.com "string" by just looking at them, so it's nonsense to
> give them totally different labels.

There is no way to distinguish between certain arsenic compounds and 
sugar, just by looking at them.  Therefore, we might as well call these 
arsenic compounds "sugar".

> I'm sure the public at large can manage
> "unregistered domain name" and  "registered domain name", if that would be
> more acceptable to you, but to refuse to use the term domain name in any
> shape or form when referring to a .tld, simply because it may not have been
> registered, is exactly the sort of confusion we should be avoiding in the
> public interest.

Perhaps  we should use the terms "poisonous sugar" and "non-poisonous 
sugar" for all white granular compounds.  That would serve the public 
very well, I'm sure.

The point is, the domain name system is embedded in a technical
framework, with associated terms, and some familiarity with that
environment is required before one is qualified to make policy
concerning domain names.  At some point, technical issues take absolute
priority: no matter how hard you try, you can't legislate that
automobiles will henceforth use water for fuel; just like you can't 
legislatively decide that pi=3.  I know that Mr Lovell will shout that 
I am being an elitist technocrat for saying things like this...

- -- 
Kent Crispin                               "Be good, and you will be
[email-masked]                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2001 19:34:12 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Domain names as observed

The domain name system is totaly independent from any technical frame work. 
It is a pure naming convention equivalent to your disk directory system, to 
the family name system and to many other naming existing systems. Nothing 
new under the sun.

On 18:06 30/07/01, Kent Crispin said:
>The point is, the domain name system is embedded in a technical
>framework, with associated terms, and some familiarity with that
>environment is required before one is qualified to make policy
>concerning domain names.

What is the necessary familiarity you require? I know that "songbird" is 
your domain name and that you registered it with the .com registry. May be 
you also registered it for your car plate, and may be your registered it 
for you home address. You seem to have gegistered it as a TradeMark to name 
products or  services without someone else using "songbird" in the same 
class and confuse the public.

>At some point, technical issues take absolute
>priority: no matter how hard you try, you can't legislate that
>automobiles will henceforth use water for fuel; just like you can't
>legislatively decide that pi=3.  I know that Mr Lovell will shout that
>I am being an elitist technocrat for saying things like this...

True, but there is a difference between wanting to rebuild the universe 
(changing pi into 3) and having a few (real, moving and virtual) places in 
the world named "songbird".
Jefsey

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

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2001 11:17:59 -0700
From: Kent Crispin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Domain names as observed

On Mon, Jul 30, 2001 at 07:34:12PM +0200, Jefsey Morfin wrote:
> The domain name system is totaly independent from any technical frame work. 
> It is a pure naming convention equivalent to your disk directory system, to 
> the family name system and to many other naming existing systems. Nothing 
> new under the sun.
> 
> On 18:06 30/07/01, Kent Crispin said:
> >The point is, the domain name system is embedded in a technical
> >framework, with associated terms, and some familiarity with that
> >environment is required before one is qualified to make policy
> >concerning domain names.
> 
> What is the necessary familiarity you require?

At least enough so that you don't produce utter nonsense like:

    "The domain name system is totaly independent from any 
    technical frame work."

- -- 
Kent Crispin                               "Be good, and you will be
[email-masked]                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2001 11:45:14 -0700
From: "William S. Lovell" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Domain names as observed

(see below)

Jefsey Morfin wrote:

> The domain name system is totaly independent from any technical frame work.
> It is a pure naming convention equivalent to your disk directory system, to
> the family name system and to many other naming existing systems. Nothing
> new under the sun.
>
> On 18:06 30/07/01, Kent Crispin said:
> >The point is, the domain name system is embedded in a technical
> >framework, with associated terms, and some familiarity with that
> >environment is required before one is qualified to make policy
> >concerning domain names.
>
> What is the necessary familiarity you require? I know that "songbird" is
> your domain name and that you registered it with the .com registry. May be
> you also registered it for your car plate, and may be your registered it
> for you home address. You seem to have gegistered it as a TradeMark to name
> products or  services without someone else using "songbird" in the same
> class and confuse the public.
>
> >At some point, technical issues take absolute
> >priority: no matter how hard you try, you can't legislate that
> >automobiles will henceforth use water for fuel; just like you can't
> >legislatively decide that pi=3.  I know that Mr Lovell will shout that
> >I am being an elitist technocrat for saying things like this...

Now, Kent.  Be nice. I may be an attorney, but I started out as,
and still am, a PhD (Princeton) Physical Chemist, and I never let
any of my clients change any of the laws of physics or mathematics.
Walking by Albert Einstein's office once a week has an effect.

:-)

Bill Lovell

>
>
> True, but there is a difference between wanting to rebuild the universe
> (changing pi into 3) and having a few (real, moving and virtual) places in
> the world named "songbird".
> Jefsey
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

- --
Any terms above that are not familiar to the reader may
possibly be explained at:
"WHAT IS": http://whatis.techtarget.com/
GLOSSARY: http://www.icann.org/general/glossary.htm
Archives of posted emails on various General Assembly
mailing lists and other ICANN information can be found at:
http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2001 19:31:50 +0000
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Domain names as observed (was Tucows Response to Cochet tiTransfer Letter)

Joanna Lane wrote:

>..... I sense that the general public would agree with the opinion
>that any "string" ending with ".tld" is generally understood to be a 
>"domain
>name", even if it is unregistered and non-existant in any root. The phrase
>is already in the vernacular in that respect.
>
>Added to that, there is no way to distinguish the example.com "domain name"
>from the example.com "string" by just looking at them, so it's nonsense to
>give them totally different labels. I'm sure the public at large can manage
>"unregistered domain name" and  "registered domain name", if that would be
>more acceptable to you, but to refuse to use the term domain name in any
>shape or form when referring to a .tld, simply because it may not have been
>registered, is exactly the sort of confusion we should be avoiding in the
>public interest.

I would not be so sure.
Would you find acceptable to buy from some registrar "string.foo", and to 
find out that it is an "unregistered domain name"?

Exactly for consumer protection purposes, i.e. in the public interest, we 
should use the term "domain name" consistently for something that "has the 
property that make it usable as a domain name".

There are some green pieces of paper in circulation that "look like 
dollars", maybe to the extent that the average person is unable to 
distinguish them from the "dollars" printed by the US Treasury, but the fact 
that you may be arrested if you claim that they are real "dollars" should 
show that "just looking at them" may not be a satisfactory approach to tell 
the difference.

I do agree with Leah, when she makes the analogy with a rent/lease of an 
apartment:
>
>A property manager for an apartment complex does not
>necessarily own the complex, but has the rights to lease
>apartments within that property.  The tenant does not own the
>apartment, but does have whatever rights are conferred under the
>lease agreement.  He may or may not be able to sublet the
>apartment, sell, will or trade his rights in the lease contract, use it
>for something other than his domicile, etc.  It would all depend on
>the lease contract.  As long as the tenant continues to pay his
>"rent" and/or fees and does not violate the terms of the lease
>agreement, he has the right to enjoy the use of that apartment.
>
>I don't see a registration as anything different, really, except that
>there is no physical property involved, but just a contract for a
>service.

Regards
Roberto

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

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

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2001 23:38:50 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Domain names as observed

On 20:17 30/07/01, Kent Crispin said:
> > What is the necessary familiarity you require?
>At least enough so that you don't produce utter nonsense like:
>    "The domain name system is totaly independent from any
>     technical frame work."

I suppose that Kent Crispin and I are some of the most seasoned Members of 
this list concerning public data network naming and addressing issues. This 
thread will therefore develop privately and conclude in a glass of beer in 
Marina del Rey. I will foot the trip, so I expect Kent to foot the beer.
Jefsey

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

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2001 19:20:44 -0400
From: Joanna Lane <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Domain names as observed

on 7/30/01 12:06 PM, Kent Crispin at [email-masked] wrote:

> On Mon, Jul 30, 2001 at 05:35:43AM -0400, Joanna Lane wrote:
>> Joanna wrote:-
>> <snip>
>>>> an original artistic and literary work. A real
>>>> life example of that would be "bazoomer.com", which features as the product
>>>> placement storyline in David Mammet's fictional film "State and Main" (BTW,
>>>> an excellent movie). Another example is VeriSign's own "the-bug-reaper.com"
>>>> commercial.  Neither of these domain names is active, and probably never
>>>> will be,
> 
> I interpreted "active" in this context to mean "registered", as you
> appear to do as well, since you continue to use the term "registered" vs
> "unregistered" below.  It makes a certain amount of sense, in fact,
> since we were talking about legal issues, and the point of registration
> is when the domain name gets legal status as a domain name, via the
> registration agreement...

Then you interpreted wrong. The names are registered, but do not resolve to
any website, i.e not active. Apologies for any confusion, but the fact that
I discussed to whom they are registered at length should have made that
clear. 
> 
>> Kent wrote:- 
>>> Then they aren't really domain names.
> 
> ...so the above means "unless a string is registered with a domain name
> registry, it isn't a domain name."
> 
>> <snip>
>> Joanna wrote:-
>>> their purpose [bazooma.com and the-bug-reaper.com] is simply to exist in an
>> artistic and literary
>>> context as part of fictional work that is being exploited extensively in the
>>> public domain using other media - theatrical release, broadcast TV, DVD,
>>> Video etc. 
>>> 
>>> These examples, and others, may enter the public conscious without ever
>>> being accessible in the DNS roots or appearing on a single end user screen.
>>> Therefore, it's seems obvious to me that strictly speaking, it is possible
>>> (albeit not desireable) for a dotcom Domain name to exist and be exploited
>>> without any formal registrar service contract with VeriSign.
> 
> Note carefully what you are saying above.  You are essentially making a
> claim that some kind of intellectual property rights can exist in a
> string that looks like a domain name -- IPRs that can in some
> circumstances, presumably, have weight in domain name disputes.  This is
> precisely the kind of claim that TM people are making -- strings not
> registered in the DNS can have IPRs associated with them, and those
> rights can have effect in the realm of domain names.

Yes I do agree with the TM people on that point, but would also treat with
extreme caution any policy that favors one special interest group at the
expense of another.
 
>> Kent wrote:-
>> 
>>> You are exploiting a string.  But you only have rights to the *domain
>>> name* if you have some intellectual property rights that you develop for
>>> the string -- eg, a TM.
> 
> Reconsider the above statement in light of a string not registered as a
> domain name.

I don't think you mean that. To *only* have rights to the domain name if you
have some IPRs, means that the TM lobby owns the DNS, which it does not.
> 
>> Clear communication is a priority, so using words that provide no clue as to
>> what they actually mean is generally not attractive. "String" may be the
>> technical term, but it doesn't get the Plain English Award.
> 
> Deal with it.  We need a term for a generalized string of characters
> such as used in a domain name.  The fact that such a term isn't
> familiar to the general public is irrelevant.

The general public is never irrelevant to an organization that has been set
up for, and is accountable to, the public trust, however elitist one may
wish it to be.

> 
>> Numerous
>> definitions are available in standard dictionaries, but none relate to
>> domain names. I sense that the general public would agree with the opinion
>> that any "string" ending with ".tld" is generally understood to be a "domain
>> name", even if it is unregistered and non-existant in any root. The phrase
>> is already in the vernacular in that respect.
> 
> What's in the vernacular is not interesting.  We are discussing real
> policy here, and do have to concern ourselves the distinction between
> unregistered vs registered strings.

By that logic, ICANN would currently be developing an "expired string
policy". Your phone service may be interrupted, you call customer service,
they will ask you what telephone number you are calling about, not which
disconnected string of numbers. Technician to technician may be different,
but ICANN is required to interface with all interested stakeholders and the
DNSO GA is not and should not become the IETF.

> 
>> Added to that, there is no way to distinguish the example.com "domain name"
>> from the example.com "string" by just looking at them, so it's nonsense to
>> give them totally different labels.
> 
> There is no way to distinguish between certain arsenic compounds and
> sugar, just by looking at them.  Therefore, we might as well call these
> arsenic compounds "sugar".

Point taken.
> 
<snip>
> 
> The point is, the domain name system is embedded in a technical
> framework, with associated terms, and some familiarity with that
> environment is required before one is qualified to make policy
> concerning domain names.

Making policy and explaining policy are not the same thing. It doesn't serve
the public for ICANN to announce new domain name policies if there is no
common understanding of what is a domain name, which is how this thread
started (in case you've forgotten).

>At some point, technical issues take absolute
> priority: 

Stability takes absolute priority, and that encompasses social as well as
technical issues. While I do not seek to diminish the importance of
technical issues, I do recognize that ICANN is doing more than talk about
technical co-ordination, and has recently dropped the pretence that it is
not. How ICANN can make technical decisions in a socially responsible manner
is what the ALSC is currently addressing. Meanwhile, ICANN is in the
precarious position of advancing into social policy making without a proper
mechanism in place to be accountable to the public trust. The Alt.roots
problem is the result of poor consideration being given to the impact of
market forces as a result of technical decisions. There has to be a 100%
commitment one way or the other to either ignore or embrace the social
issues as well as the technical, but half measures do not support good
decisions being made on anything.

>no matter how hard you try, you can't legislate that
> automobiles will henceforth use water for fuel; just like you can't
> legislatively decide that pi=3.  I know that Mr Lovell will shout that
> I am being an elitist technocrat for saying things like this...

Regards,
Joanna

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

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2001 20:44:59 -0400
From: Joanna Lane <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Domain names as observed (was Tucows Response to Cochet tiTransfer Letter)

on 7/30/01 3:31 PM, Roberto Gaetano at [email-masked] wrote:

> Joanna Lane wrote:
> 
>> ..... I sense that the general public would agree with the opinion
>> that any "string" ending with ".tld" is generally understood to be a
>> "domain
>> name", even if it is unregistered and non-existant in any root. The phrase
>> is already in the vernacular in that respect.
>> 
>> Added to that, there is no way to distinguish the example.com "domain name"
>> from the example.com "string" by just looking at them, so it's nonsense to
>> give them totally different labels. I'm sure the public at large can manage
>> "unregistered domain name" and  "registered domain name", if that would be
>> more acceptable to you, but to refuse to use the term domain name in any
>> shape or form when referring to a .tld, simply because it may not have been
>> registered, is exactly the sort of confusion we should be avoiding in the
>> public interest.
> 
> 
> I would not be so sure.
> Would you find acceptable to buy from some registrar "string.foo", and to
> find out that it is an "unregistered domain name"?

Hello Roberto,
ICANN doesn't have the TM for "domain name", and therefore cannot apply any
sort of regulatory power over its use. It could however coin a new term for
an "authoratitive domain name", to distinguish between those purchased
inside and outside the ICANN root and accredited registrar system, if you
think that would be helpful.
 
> Exactly for consumer protection purposes, i.e. in the public interest, we
> should use the term "domain name" consistently for something that "has the
> property that make it usable as a domain name".

I agree, consistency is vital, hence the need for a clear definition of
domain name, but it really has grown into a generic term applying to all
kinds - registered, unregistered, expired, 2nd level, 3rd level etc. It's
impractical to now try to restrict it's use to only those domain names with
particular attributes, and expect everything else to be renamed or called
strings. This is the result of no definition having been determined from the
outset. It's just the way it is, and we would do better to concentrate on
new terms for domain name sub-categories to distinguish between them IMO.

Regards,
Joanna

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

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2001 03:11:39 +0200 (MET DST)
From: Per Koelle <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Domain names as observed

On Mon, 30 Jul 2001, Joanna Lane wrote:

> on 7/30/01 12:06 PM, Kent Crispin at [email-masked] wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Jul 30, 2001 at 05:35:43AM -0400, Joanna Lane wrote:
> >> Joanna wrote:-
> >> <snip>
[SNIP]
> > I interpreted "active" in this context to mean "registered", as you
> > appear to do as well, since you continue to use the term "registered" vs
> > "unregistered" below.  It makes a certain amount of sense, in fact,
> > since we were talking about legal issues, and the point of registration
> > is when the domain name gets legal status as a domain name, via the
> > registration agreement...
>
> Then you interpreted wrong. The names are registered, but do not resolve to
> any website, i.e not active. Apologies for any confusion, but the fact that

Dear Joanna,

Who says that a domainname MUST resolve to a web-site ???
I can think of at least 3+ other ways to have a domainname "active"....
In fact, I really dont know how to interpret the term "In use", or how to check
it. Is it 1 byte per second transmitted over that name, or ..... ????

And that is why, we (under .dk) say, that all it takes, is active nameservice,
to make a specific domainname appear as "in use" or being "active".
And (as you know) it is all right to have an "empty" zone, and in this case, the
domainname will resolve to "nothing", but still be considered as "active".

Regards
Per Koelle
.DK

[SNIP the rest]

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

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2001 13:38:46 +1200
From: Steven Heath <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Re:  gTLD Constituency Memo 

Danny did say:

> Here's another way of looking at the problem...
> 
> an analogy..., consider the possibility that one-eighth of 
> the members of the gTLD constituency (let's say the NSI Registry, by way
of 
> example) voted to withdraw from the DNSO in order to form a separate SO...

> (this would be comparable to the 31 out of 240+ ccTLDs having voted to
withdraw).

I would like to follow up on this comment (snipped from a much larger post)
made by our Chair.

I would guess that those 31 that voted comprise of 80% plus of the names in
the world wide ccTLD space as well as 90% of the ICANN funding 'requests'
for the ccTLD's.

This falls quite well on the standard 80/20 rule. Based on this I think
saying that so few of the total ccTLD's voting is a smoke screen. I do not
see people saying only 70 odd people voted about of 350 (or so) for the 2
recent GA votes making them any less valid.

I would welcome an exact % of names and funding if someone is interested in
doing the leg work.

Steven Heath
Treasurer, InternetNZ (.nz ccTLD manager)

PS .nz did vote on this issue.
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2001 22:13:40 -0400
From: Sotiris Sotiropoulos <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Domain names as observed

Joanna et al.,

I think we should add Judge O'Scannlain's comment to our list at
internetstakeholders.com:

"The domain name is more than a mere address: like trademarks, second-level
domain names communicate information as to source."

Sincerely,

Sotiris Sotiropoulos

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

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2001 23:10:37 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] ALSC's Structural Options

- --part1_be.18171794.28977bad_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

I have taken the liberty of creating visual representations of the 
restructuring proposals put forth by the ALSC (their Options A,B,C).
These have been published at http://www.icannworld.org/options.htm

- --part1_be.18171794.28977bad_boundary
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<HTML><FONT FACE=arial,helvetica><FONT  SIZE=3>I have taken the liberty of creating visual representations of the 
<BR>restructuring proposals put forth by the ALSC (their Options A,B,C).
<BR>These have been published at http://www.icannworld.org/options.htm
<BR>
<BR> 
<BR>
<BR>
<BR></FONT><FONT  COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0"></FONT></HTML>

- --part1_be.18171794.28977bad_boundary--
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #641
************************