Received: from mustang.lariat.org (IDENT:ppp0.lariat.org@lariat.lariat.org [206.100.185.2]) by lariat.lariat.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA29078; Mon, 17 May 1999 19:53:06 -0600 (MDT) Message-Id: <4.2.0.37.19990517185739.00b39bd0@localhost> X-Sender: brett@localhost X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.0.37 (Beta) Date: Mon, 17 May 1999 19:53:03 -0600 To: Jeff Williams From: Brett Glass Subject: Re: grandfathering of .us domains? Cc: pgf-usdom@foxharp.boston.ma.us, us-list@ntiant1.ntia.doc.gov, "edyson@edventure.com" , Domain policy , dnsproc-en , dnso-ip , DNSO , ICANN SO comments In-Reply-To: <37404830.6A751E24@ix.netcom.com> References: <18416.926975974@foxharp.boston.ma.us> <4.2.0.37.19990517161828.044e8ef0@localhost> <4.2.0.37.19990517170156.009f9100@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 05:47 PM 5/17/99 +0100, Jeff Williams wrote: > Agreed. And if they are not attempting to sell the same type of goods >using that Domain name or TM name there is not TM conflict, unless >one of the other party can show confusion as it is related to TM law. But there's still a domain name conflict. And this is a big problem. Geography and the nature of a business can't be taken into account, because there's only one THATNAME.COM. >But ICANN and WIPO don't see it that way, Brett, which was my broader >point, in addition to as it applies to .US ccTLD for purposes of this >discussion... If ICANN and WIPO begin grabbing people's domain names in a way that seems arbitrary, there will be mass rebellion and perhaps huge lawsuits. Again, now that a judge has ruled that domain names are property, the "takings" clause comes into play. >SO the question remains how can any or most of those >already Domain Names in the .US ccTLD name space be grandfather >given the current ICANN "Accreditation Policy" and the WIPO RFC-3 >"Final Report"? Well the simple answer is that unless you have that >Domain name registered as a TM, and soon, you are likely to stand >the chance of facing a legal challenge, that you may not wish or be able >to afford. Or, ICANN will simply take it from you! One doesn't need to be rich to walk into a Federal courthouse and file a lawsuit. And businesses which see their existence as dependent upon ownership of a unique and mnemonic domain name will do so, even if it DOES cost a lot. What else can they do? It's a matter of survival. Even "Mom and Pop" businesses would fight for their names. > > Let's take an example. In a conflict over the name STONE.COM, who would win? > > The Stone Family, which has been doing business as Stone Hardware for 100 > > years? > > This will depend if the Stone Family filed a TM and a Domain name of >STONE.COM before anyone else did, in both cases, according to WIPO >and the ICANN. Not a very reasonable scenario is it? Or, the Stone Family >can enter in to binding arbitration, another very expensive affair, with all the >other parties claiming or making claims to Stone.com, if the Stone Family >have that Domain name registered and in use. Or they can register >a new Domain Name of something like Stonehdw.com and inform all of their >current customers of the change. Yet another rather expensive and unfair >situation should the Stone Family been first to register the original Domain >Name of STONE.COM or STONE.COM.US, for instance. This is when the lawsuit is likely to commence. >> A "first come first serve" policy is slanted against latecomers to the Internet, > > who may have come late by no fault of their own (e.g. by being in a less > > developed country). It also hurts the development of new businesses, which we > > certainly don't want. > > To some extent I agree with your contention here. This is partly addressed >with the new Trademark classifications that have been provided by law from >the USPTO on "Things Internet" such as a Domain Name, to also be registered >as a Trademark as well. What is in question is or does this apply to those >that have commercial domains registered under the .US ccTLD? Why not? The domain name is property whether or not it is a trademark -- or so says the judge. Bankrupt companies have already auctioned off names that were dictionary words -- rather than trademarks -- as part of the liquidation process. >> I'd beg to differ. Many people (including me) would assert that names are > > words. My last name, in particular, would have been a valuable commodity > > had I thought to "grab" it several years ago before the "gold rush" on > > the dictionary began. But I cannot use it now, even if I have a company > > whose name contains "Glass." Is this fair? > > It would depend on what you were going to use that potential Domain Name >for. Is it commercial or noncommercial. In addition, if non commercial, >it cannot be deemed as "Confusing" to an already existing business with a >previously registered TM. Are you familiar with trademark case law? People HAVE been denied the use of their family names as the name of a business when someone else has registered a trademark. Sad, but true. A good naming scheme for the Internet would help us to avoid such obviously awkward and unfair situations rather than making them an everyday occurrence. >> And who gives WIPO or ICANN the authority to yank a company's name out > > from under it? > > The DOC and in particular the NTIA, which is sponsoring this very list has >already given ICANN in part this authority and has solicited WIPO to do a >study, which has now culminated into the WIPO RFC-3 "Final Report" which >may weigh heavily on the answer to your question. The DOC cannot trample the Constitution. If domain names are property, then they can't be appropriated without just compensation. > > Or a family's name? (The current system doesn't even allow > > a name to be allocated to more than one party; it's winner-take-all, > > a situation which in general leads to unsatisfactory solutions.) > > Unsatisfactory to whom? To others that have the same family name >perhaps? Unsatisfactory in that great harm is done to many people and businesses. >> We must face facts. Forming another organization (e.g. ICANN), or delegating > > solutions to a worldwide authority (e.g. WIPO) cannot fix the simple fact that > > the foundation on which the system is built -- i.e. "owning" a word or name > > which is legitimately applicable to more than one party -- is faulty. A > > paradigm that better mirrors the real world is needed. > > Faulty it is to be sure, but that is the way of the real world. The Domain Name System isn't "the real world." It's an artifice -- only one of many possible ways of naming computers and resources on the Internet. A system that better mirrored the real world, in which there ARE overlaps, ambiguities, etc., would in fact work better for all concerned. >But my concern >is dealing with the subject of this thread in this context and how do we >come up with a acceptable, but not perfect solution. Do we do so >based on the NTIA's own White Paper? I say yes. Ira Magaziner's white paper is inadequate in that it does not "think outside the box." It assumes that the current implementation of DNS is the only way to do things. It is time for a new and better naming and cataloguing scheme. What would the characteristics of such a scheme be? Among other things, it would: 1. Allow for multiple entities with the same name without according special privilege or advantage to any of them; 2. Prevent a single entity (in particular, a business) from seizing exclusive use of a generic term, such as the name of a commodity; 3. Prevent newcomers to a market or business category from being disadvantaged relative to existing players; 4. Allow for truly decentralized registration and operation (so as to avoid the current disastrous situation in which one company holds the keys to the kingdom and refuses to relinquish them); 5. Resist tampering (It's currently FAR too easy to muck up someone's domain registration by impersonating him or her in a message to InterNIC); 6. Enable instantaneous changes to primary server IP numbers, rather than requiring an overnight wait (so as to allow for an immediate shift to a backup in case of disaster); 7. Provide a more generalized database of information rather than just a database of IP numbers, host names, and mail servers; 8. Protect registrants' privacy and avoid exposing them to spam; 9. Make it simpler to set up and update secondary servers; and 10. Provide hooks for backward compatibility so that the transition to a new and better system can be graceful. In short, folks, it's time for some serious re-engineering. Remember that the original designers of DNS did not contemplate a global, commercial Internet. They were looking for a simple fix to a nagging problem: the growth of the ARPANet HOSTS.TXT file, which was growing too large to be replicated on every machine and was obsolete on most of them at any given time. (I was earning my MSEE at Stanford at the time, and had long discussions with some truly brilliant, unsung Internet pioneers -- such as Erik Fair and Mark Lottor -- about the problem.) This first-pass solution -- DNS as it exists today -- was not meant to be the final one. To frame policies based on an assumption that it IS the final one is both shortsighted and dangerous. Hopefully, we're smarter than that. Let's take what we've learned from this early prototype (for that's what it is) and design the next generation -- something that will last. Something that will avoid conflict rather than leading us into the thick of it. Something that will naturally promote competition and leverage the wonderful anarchy and chaos that is the Internet, rather than being inimical to it. Esther, would you like to work on this? Everyone? --Brett Glass . Received: from mustang.lariat.org (IDENT:ppp0.lariat.org@lariat.lariat.org [206.100.185.2]) by lariat.lariat.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA27936; Mon, 17 May 1999 17:40:23 -0600 (MDT) Message-Id: <4.2.0.37.19990517173558.00b397f0@localhost> X-Sender: brett@localhost X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.0.37 (Beta) Date: Mon, 17 May 1999 17:39:43 -0600 To: us-list@ntiant1.ntia.doc.gov From: Brett Glass Subject: Interesting article on ICANN Cc: pgf-usdom@foxharp.boston.ma.us, "edyson@edventure.com" , dnsproc-en , dnso-ip , DNSO Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" For those on the list who have not seen it, there's a fascinating article on ICANN at http://www.heise.de/tp/english/inhalt/te/2837/1.html The article evaluates and critiques the process by which ICANN was established and proposes to operate (though not unjustly, IMHO), and raises some key issues. --Brett Glass . Received: from mustang.lariat.org (IDENT:ppp0.lariat.org@lariat.lariat.org [206.100.185.2]) by lariat.lariat.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA27764; Mon, 17 May 1999 17:21:36 -0600 (MDT) Message-Id: <4.2.0.37.19990517170156.009f9100@localhost> X-Sender: brett@localhost X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.0.37 (Beta) Date: Mon, 17 May 1999 17:21:31 -0600 To: Jeff Williams From: Brett Glass Subject: Re: grandfathering of .us domains? Cc: pgf-usdom@foxharp.boston.ma.us, us-list@ntiant1.ntia.doc.gov, "edyson@edventure.com" , Domain policy , dnsproc-en , dnso-ip , DNSO In-Reply-To: <37402F6A.E18BADE6@ix.netcom.com> References: <18416.926975974@foxharp.boston.ma.us> <4.2.0.37.19990517161828.044e8ef0@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 04:02 PM 5/17/99 +0100, Jeff Williams wrote: > FIrst come first serve, should remain the rule as ti applies to Domain Names. First come in what venue? There may be a first to go into business, a first to trademark, a first to register, and (if it's a family name) first use of the name by a family. All different. Let's take an example. In a conflict over the name STONE.COM, who would win? The Stone Family, which has been doing business as Stone Hardware for 100 years? The Stone Corporation, which has been making monuments for 40 years? STONE.COM, a recent startup that just happened to be the first to register it as a domain? A "first come first serve" policy is slanted against latecomers to the Internet, who may have come late by no fault of their own (e.g. by being in a less developed country). It also hurts the development of new businesses, which we certainly don't want. (Already, a new business may be in serious trouble, as the name of its stock in trade is almost certainly taken by an existing company -- probably a competitor.) >But is JEFF.COM a word, for example? No it is not. It is a "String of >characters" or a Domain name perhaps? Perhaps. But not a word. I'd beg to differ. Many people (including me) would assert that names are words. My last name, in particular, would have been a valuable commodity had I thought to "grab" it several years ago before the "gold rush" on the dictionary began. But I cannot use it now, even if I have a company whose name contains "Glass." Is this fair? >Same with Ford.com, ect, ect, ect.... Now, Ford is a proper name and >as part to a name of a company known as Ford Motor Company. >Does Joe Shmoe that registered Ford.com long before Ford Motor Company >did have rights to that Domain Name or does the TM holder Ford Motor >company have greater rights. The same will apply in the .US ccTLD >name space for many of the same/similar situations... Are they to be grandfathered >"As Is"? I say yes. But WIPO will definatly disagree as likely than not, >will ICANN. And this was the essence of my original posts point.... And who gives WIPO or ICANN the authority to yank a company's name out from under it? Or a family's name? (The current system doesn't even allow a name to be allocated to more than one party; it's winner-take-all, a situation which in general leads to unsatisfactory solutions.) We must face facts. Forming another organization (e.g. ICANN), or delegating solutions to a worldwide authority (e.g. WIPO) cannot fix the simple fact that the foundation on which the system is built -- i.e. "owning" a word or name which is legitimately applicable to more than one party -- is faulty. A paradigm that better mirrors the real world is needed. --Brett Glass . Received: from mustang.lariat.org (IDENT:ppp0.lariat.org@lariat.lariat.org [206.100.185.2]) by lariat.lariat.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA27332; Mon, 17 May 1999 16:30:22 -0600 (MDT) Message-Id: <4.2.0.37.19990517161828.044e8ef0@localhost> X-Sender: brett@localhost X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.0.37 (Beta) Date: Mon, 17 May 1999 16:30:08 -0600 To: Jeff Williams , pgf-usdom@foxharp.boston.ma.us From: Brett Glass Subject: Re: grandfathering of .us domains? Cc: us-list@ntiant1.ntia.doc.gov, "edyson@edventure.com" , Domain policy , dnsproc-en , dnso-ip , DNSO In-Reply-To: <37402414.5F7D2F60@ix.netcom.com> References: <18416.926975974@foxharp.boston.ma.us> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" The problem is that there is no good, objective criterion by which one can define "squatting." Yes, in some cases, it's clear that someone is out to extort money from a large national or multinational corporation. But in other cases, the issue is not as clear cut. Imagine the following scenario. Someone announces his intent to start a new company, and -- since getting the name as a domain is becoming a prerequisite -- registers a desired name as a domain name prior to getting his new company started. (This is actually a smart move nowadays, since a new company can ill afford to name itself anything that CANNOT be secured as a domain.) He then submits his business plan to some VCs to raise money. His company may not open its doors for a good 6 months at this point, but he has wisely secured the domain for it even though the business is not running. The VCs may not even fund the company if it cannot secure a recognizable domain. Now comes an existing company that either wants the name, does not want to see a new competitor emerge, or is doing business in another field under that name. It files a claim of "squatting." What happens? There is no company yet, though there is a clear intent to establish one. The existing company will clearly have deeper pockets and possibly political clout. Who wins? And who decides? Clearly, the entire notion of "owning" a word from the dictionary is flawed. This is the shifting sand on which the entire domain name system is built, and it's a very poor foundation on which to construct our future. --Brett Glass At 03:13 PM 5/17/99 +0100, Jeff Williams wrote: >Paul and all, > > Though I agree with your position here with regard to your >DN in .US, I am quite sure given the current trend from ICANN >and the DNSO structure that has been jury-rigged, you would get some >serious argument on your position here. > > And of course WIPO would find fault in your position as their >"Final Report" indicates quite clearly. DN squatting, as THEY define it, >if seriously frowned upon.... > >pgf-usdom@foxharp.boston.ma.us wrote: >> > >has there been any discussion of whether prior "holders" of .us >> > >domain names will be permitted to continue using those names after >> > >the current debate is resolved, in whatever fashion? >> ... >> > You should set your expectations at the highest possible level. A >> > judge has recently ruled that domain names are property. If your >> > domain name is taken away from you by government, you very likely >> > have a cause of action under the "takings" clause of the US >> > Constitution. >> >>as much as i like the sound of this, the fact is that i have never >>paid any money for the use of my domain. i suppose in a court i could >>assert "squatter's rights", or somesuch, but i wouldn't be at all >>surprised if that didn't work either. >> >>i suppose that if domains _are_ considered "owned" by their current >>users, then any future organization of .us along different lines sort >>of requires that such use occur in new second-level domains under .us, >>and not in the existing hierarchy. i.e. say the post office gets >>control of .us -- they then would have to, in perpetuity, maintain an >>exception list to whatever scheme they put in place. if instead they >>simply began operating under "post.us", there would be no conflict >>between their use and the current, um, free-for-all. >> >>paul >>=--------------------- >> paul fox, pgf@foxharp.boston.ma.us (arlington, ma, where it's 64.2 degrees) >Regards, > >-- >Jeffrey A. Williams >CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng. >Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC. >E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com >Contact Number: 972-447-1894 >Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208 > . Received: from mustang.lariat.org (IDENT:ppp0.lariat.org@lariat.lariat.org [206.100.185.2]) by lariat.lariat.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA01503; Fri, 14 May 1999 21:29:55 -0600 (MDT) Message-Id: <4.2.0.37.19990514212629.04526850@localhost> X-Sender: brett@localhost X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.0.37 (Beta) Date: Fri, 14 May 1999 21:29:50 -0600 To: Paul Fox , us-list@ntiant1.ntia.doc.gov From: Brett Glass Subject: Re: grandfathering of .us domains? In-Reply-To: <2227.926717050@foxharp.boston.ma.us> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Several subscribers to the list have asked for more information on the court decision declaring that domain names were property. My source was the C|Net NEWS.COM article at http://www.news.com/News/Item/0,4,34329,00.html If this decision stands up -- and the lawyers with whom I have discussed it say it does -- then any attempt to remove the .US domain from local control -- which is, IMHO, where it belongs -- would be actionable. Localities deserve to have control of their names. --Brett Glass . Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix16.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id XAA12710; Mon, 17 May 1999 23:39:19 -0500 (CDT) Received: from dal-tx8-57.ix.netcom.com(207.94.123.121) by dfw-ix16.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma012683; Mon May 17 23:38:47 1999 Message-ID: <374081A8.FAD730A9@ix.netcom.com> Date: Mon, 17 May 1999 21:52:59 +0100 From: Jeff Williams Organization: INEG. Inc. X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.08 [en] (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Brett Glass CC: pgf-usdom@foxharp.boston.ma.us, us-list@ntiant1.ntia.doc.gov, "edyson@edventure.com" , Domain policy , dnsproc-en , dnso-ip , ICANN SO comments Subject: Re: grandfathering of .us domains? References: <18416.926975974@foxharp.boston.ma.us> <4.2.0.37.19990517161828.044e8ef0@localhost> <4.2.0.37.19990517170156.009f9100@localhost> <4.2.0.37.19990517185739.00b39bd0@localhost> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Brett and all, Brett Glass wrote: > At 05:47 PM 5/17/99 +0100, Jeff Williams wrote: > > > Agreed. And if they are not attempting to sell the same type of goods > >using that Domain name or TM name there is not TM conflict, unless > >one of the other party can show confusion as it is related to TM law. > > But there's still a domain name conflict. And this is a big problem. > Geography and the nature of a business can't be taken into account, > because there's only one THATNAME.COM. Oh I agree completely here. And it seems that ICANN and WIPO are content to deal with this in a arcane and arbitrary or nearly arbitrary manner, without, or with very little consideration for existing US law, not to mention International law and practice as well. > > > >But ICANN and WIPO don't see it that way, Brett, which was my broader > >point, in addition to as it applies to .US ccTLD for purposes of this > >discussion... > > If ICANN and WIPO begin grabbing people's domain names in a way that > seems arbitrary, there will be mass rebellion and perhaps huge > lawsuits. Well it won't be arbitrary to be sure. The ICANN and WIPO will provide plenty of logic or reason based on their own opinions of course, that will justify any confiscation of a domain name. Of this you can be sure. > Again, now that a judge has ruled that domain names are > property, the "takings" clause comes into play. Takings clause can be overridden under certain circumstances, such as some of those that WIPO and ICANN would suggest, such as offensive Domain names, or Domains that have a content that may be offensive to the internet community in their opinion. > > > >SO the question remains how can any or most of those > >already Domain Names in the .US ccTLD name space be grandfather > >given the current ICANN "Accreditation Policy" and the WIPO RFC-3 > >"Final Report"? Well the simple answer is that unless you have that > >Domain name registered as a TM, and soon, you are likely to stand > >the chance of facing a legal challenge, that you may not wish or be able > >to afford. Or, ICANN will simply take it from you! > > One doesn't need to be rich to walk into a Federal courthouse and file a > lawsuit. True, but you will need to have a substantial sum, at least for some mom and pop business with a Domain Name dispute of some sort, to be able to adjudicate it or even possibly worse to arbitrate it under WIPO's ADR arbitration procedure. > And businesses which see their existence as dependent upon > ownership of a unique and mnemonic domain name will do so, even if > it DOES cost a lot. What else can they do? It's a matter of survival. > Even "Mom and Pop" businesses would fight for their names. Agreed, and I feel this is both unnecessary and easily avoided, as I and we [INEGroup] have suggested and have been suggested by many others as well. > > > > > Let's take an example. In a conflict over the name STONE.COM, who would win? > > > The Stone Family, which has been doing business as Stone Hardware for 100 > > > years? > > > > This will depend if the Stone Family filed a TM and a Domain name of > >STONE.COM before anyone else did, in both cases, according to WIPO > >and the ICANN. Not a very reasonable scenario is it? Or, the Stone Family > >can enter in to binding arbitration, another very expensive affair, with all the > >other parties claiming or making claims to Stone.com, if the Stone Family > >have that Domain name registered and in use. Or they can register > >a new Domain Name of something like Stonehdw.com and inform all of their > >current customers of the change. Yet another rather expensive and unfair > >situation should the Stone Family been first to register the original Domain > >Name of STONE.COM or STONE.COM.US, for instance. > > This is when the lawsuit is likely to commence. Yep. And this takes us full circle, doesn't it? And why the subject of this thread regarding .US and grandfathering becomes a problem given the current direction, not to mention .com, .net, .org DN's as well.... > > > >> A "first come first serve" policy is slanted against latecomers to the Internet, > > > who may have come late by no fault of their own (e.g. by being in a less > > > developed country). It also hurts the development of new businesses, which we > > > certainly don't want. > > > > To some extent I agree with your contention here. This is partly addressed > >with the new Trademark classifications that have been provided by law from > >the USPTO on "Things Internet" such as a Domain Name, to also be registered > >as a Trademark as well. What is in question is or does this apply to those > >that have commercial domains registered under the .US ccTLD? > > Why not? The domain name is property whether or not it is a trademark -- or so > says the judge. Bankrupt companies have already auctioned off names that were > dictionary words -- rather than trademarks -- as part of the liquidation process. I agree completely with you and the various judges that have ruled in this manner. But ICANN and WIPO do not agree with your contention here. Hence, we have a serious disjunctive. > > > >> I'd beg to differ. Many people (including me) would assert that names are > > > words. My last name, in particular, would have been a valuable commodity > > > had I thought to "grab" it several years ago before the "gold rush" on > > > the dictionary began. But I cannot use it now, even if I have a company > > > whose name contains "Glass." Is this fair? > > > > It would depend on what you were going to use that potential Domain Name > >for. Is it commercial or noncommercial. In addition, if non commercial, > >it cannot be deemed as "Confusing" to an already existing business with a > >previously registered TM. > > Are you familiar with trademark case law? Yes I am, very. > People HAVE been denied the use of > their family names as the name of a business when someone else has registered > a trademark. Sad, but true. Very true indeed. And in some cases unjustly so. > A good naming scheme for the Internet would help > us to avoid such obviously awkward and unfair situations rather than making > them an everyday occurrence. I completely agree. And several have been suggested. Even and extension of the existing DNS system that would accomplish this with additional TLD's and additional Root servers in a shared root server structure would elevate much of this problem in several obvious ways. I have suggested such an idea, but ICANN want's to stick with the existing legacy system. > > > >> And who gives WIPO or ICANN the authority to yank a company's name out > > > from under it? > > > > The DOC and in particular the NTIA, which is sponsoring this very list has > >already given ICANN in part this authority and has solicited WIPO to do a > >study, which has now culminated into the WIPO RFC-3 "Final Report" which > >may weigh heavily on the answer to your question. > > The DOC cannot trample the Constitution. If domain names are property, > then they can't be appropriated without just compensation. True, it is however difficult in some cases to make an accurate evaluation as to what that value is or might be over time. > > > > > Or a family's name? (The current system doesn't even allow > > > a name to be allocated to more than one party; it's winner-take-all, > > > a situation which in general leads to unsatisfactory solutions.) > > > > Unsatisfactory to whom? To others that have the same family name > >perhaps? > > Unsatisfactory in that great harm is done to many people and businesses. Good answer, a nd again I agree. But I ask this question to garner an answer. You provided a very good and simple one. > > > >> We must face facts. Forming another organization (e.g. ICANN), or delegating > > > solutions to a worldwide authority (e.g. WIPO) cannot fix the simple fact that > > > the foundation on which the system is built -- i.e. "owning" a word or name > > > which is legitimately applicable to more than one party -- is faulty. A > > > paradigm that better mirrors the real world is needed. > > > > Faulty it is to be sure, but that is the way of the real world. > > The Domain Name System isn't "the real world." It's an artifice -- only one > of many possible ways of naming computers and resources on the Internet. Yes, but is is PART of the real world now. > > A system that better mirrored the real world, in which there ARE overlaps, > ambiguities, etc., would in fact work better for all concerned. Agreed in as much as this can be done. > > > >But my concern > >is dealing with the subject of this thread in this context and how do we > >come up with a acceptable, but not perfect solution. Do we do so > >based on the NTIA's own White Paper? I say yes. > > Ira Magaziner's white paper is inadequate in that it does not "think outside > the box." It assumes that the current implementation of DNS is the only way > to do things. It is time for a new and better naming and cataloguing scheme. Agreed. > > > What would the characteristics of such a scheme be? Among other things, it would: > > 1. Allow for multiple entities with the same name without according special > privilege or advantage to any of them; > 2. Prevent a single entity (in particular, a business) from seizing exclusive > use of a generic term, such as the name of a commodity; > 3. Prevent newcomers to a market or business category from being disadvantaged > relative to existing players; > 4. Allow for truly decentralized registration and operation (so as to avoid the > current disastrous situation in which one company holds the keys to the > kingdom and refuses to relinquish them); > 5. Resist tampering (It's currently FAR too easy to muck up someone's > domain registration by impersonating him or her in a message to InterNIC); > 6. Enable instantaneous changes to primary server IP numbers, rather than requiring > an overnight wait (so as to allow for an immediate shift to a backup in case of > disaster); > 7. Provide a more generalized database of information rather than just a database > of IP numbers, host names, and mail servers; > 8. Protect registrants' privacy and avoid exposing them to spam; > 9. Make it simpler to set up and update secondary servers; and > 10. Provide hooks for backward compatibility so that the transition to a new > and better system can be graceful. Good points all here. And I would add, that many have been suggested before as well as what I suggested as a extension of the existing legacy root structure of the DNS would provide for. > > > In short, folks, it's time for some serious re-engineering. Remember that the > original designers of DNS did not contemplate a global, commercial Internet. > They were looking for a simple fix to a nagging problem: the growth of the > ARPANet HOSTS.TXT file, which was growing too large to be replicated on > every machine and was obsolete on most of them at any given time. (I was > earning my MSEE at Stanford at the time, and had long discussions with some > truly brilliant, unsung Internet pioneers -- such as Erik Fair and Mark > Lottor -- about the problem.) > > This first-pass solution -- DNS as it exists today -- was not meant to be the > final one. To frame policies based on an assumption that it IS the final one > is both shortsighted and dangerous. > > Hopefully, we're smarter than that. Let's take what we've learned from this > early prototype (for that's what it is) and design the next generation -- > something that will last. Something that will avoid conflict rather than > leading us into the thick of it. Something that will naturally promote > competition and leverage the wonderful anarchy and chaos that is the > Internet, rather than being inimical to it. Esther, would you like to work > on this? Everyone? > > --Brett Glass Regards, -- Jeffrey A. Williams CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng. Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC. E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com Contact Number: 972-447-1894 Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208 . Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix14.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id DAA02027; Tue, 18 May 1999 03:36:22 -0500 (CDT) Received: from dal-tx1-01.ix.netcom.com(207.94.120.65) by dfw-ix14.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma002025; Tue May 18 03:36:11 1999 Message-ID: <3740B94B.B83ADF98@ix.netcom.com> Date: Tue, 18 May 1999 01:50:21 +0100 From: Jeff Williams Organization: INEG. Inc. X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.08 [en] (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Christopher.WILKINSON@DG13.cec.be CC: rmeyer@mhsc.com, owner-discuss@dnso.org, brett@lariat.org, us-list@ntiant1.ntia.doc.gov, pgf-usdom@foxharp.boston.ma.us, edyson@edventure.com, dnso-ip@world.std.com, discuss@dnso.org, rh120@columbia.edu Subject: Re: John Horvath's article on ICANN References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Christopher and all, Christopher.WILKINSON@DG13.cec.be wrote: > Good Morning: > > I have read John Horvath's article "Cone of Silence" and would have several comments. In general, I find the article either under researched or very selective regarding ALL the non-US aspects of the reform of the organisation and management of the Internet. > > How do I contact John Horvath? > > Meanwhile, there is one major inaccuracy regarding the EU which should be corrected: John Horvath says, apparently referring to the European Commission that "There is distinctly no mention of the public sector". This is quite untrue. This is because at the time the EU commision Executive's were all ask to step down due to significant evidance if chronism and other related fraudulent activities. Some of these activities were involved with ICANN Interim Board members it is suspected, though further internal investigation is not ongoing in this and other respects. > > > The Commission said, in July 1998: > > "(vi) The Commission and the Member States should recognise the growing importance of their roles as Internet users. Indeed, in the context of a private-sector self-regulatory organisation, the main official input from the public authorities to the long-term Internet management structures will be in their capacities as major users of the Internet and providers of information and services to the public." This is not the same as direct public input from the EU commission council, hence one of several reasons that that Council, now defunct, and currently under investigation. > > > See: http://www.ispo.cec.be > > and click on Internet Governance, Policy Documents. (There is a good deal of other relevant material on that web page which the author may wish to refer to as well.) This reference is not authoritative and is grossly lacking in factual information. > > > Furthermore, the initial proposal for a not-for-profit constituency, including public sector users (local and regional authorities, health, education and research, cultural heritage etc.) was made by the European Commission at the Washington DNSO meeting and has since been adopted by the ICANN Board. And again without sufficient and in some cases any direct public input, hence making it simply personal opinion of only a handful of individuals and also par to the ongoing EU Council investigation. > > > e European Union and its Member States are also playing their part in the creation of the ICANN Governmental Advisory Committee. This is true. And it is about the only statement that is wholly accurate in this whole response. > > > Regards, Christopher Wilkinson. Regards, -- Jeffrey A. Williams CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng. Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC. E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com Contact Number: 972-447-1894 Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208 . Received: (qmail 8335 invoked by uid 524); 18 May 1999 11:32:41 -0000 Date: 18 May 1999 11:32:41 -0000 Message-ID: <19990518113241.8334.qmail@sidehack.sat.gweep.net> From: "JZP" To: us-list@ntiant1.ntia.doc.gov Subject: Management is the issue [was "e-commerce is the issue"] [snip] > DNS is simply a means of distributing maintenance of > host names at the edges of self-organizing network resources. > Could you articulate what it is that's at stake? Is it > just some possible user confusion or is there something > else? "User confusion" about what? A lot of arguments I hear for flatly- organized, willy-nilly no-management naming schemes are based on the bogus assumptions that - the DNS is an accurate directory service - the web (http traffic) is the internet - the way company X or company Y makes their web browser behave when given incomplete DNS information should drive the structure of all DNS trees I would love to turn the clock back to the point when the first point was true, the NIC actually rejected names that 'violated' the TLD definition. But we don't have that luxury. If I'm not mistaken, part of the organization of US under RFC1480 is a nod to a directory service ["Hrm... foxharp.bston.ma.us... that's an organization of some kind in Boston..."]. Today, the bulk of traffic is http, and the popularity of point-click tools is driving that. There's actually a lot of random MIME types diguised as http because people are lazy (to define new URL methods) or want to "slip" into the existing web browsers without being concerned that said browsers know how to handle data of method "foo:". The assumption that the web browser and web traffic is "all that matters" must be checked at the door when examining infrastructure such as the DNS. Yes it is a driving force, but the layout of a dashboard, steering wheel, and seats in a car does not drive decisions regarding the transmission, nor should it. This ties into another blind-spot, which is browser behavior. When given no method, most browsers assume "http:", triggering some of the content-provider behavior mentioned above. When given an unqualified domain, browsers will use their configured or built-in search order for domains. This is a sad, unfortunate departure from all previous internet tools, which properly relied upon the single-configuration of the DNS resolver to determine what search order, if any, should be used to resolve the names. It is *this* behavior that steered people towards the unspoken belief that the DNS is a directory service. To attempt to bend the DNS to fit the misguided behavior of one or two software manufacturers is backwards and wrong. > Arguably, hasn't the self-defining, brand and marketing name > approach for COM, ORG, and NET domains been a principal driver > of ECommerce development? The "self-defining" approach has been a miserable failure. If I am to look for an international comany's online 'presence', I cannot be assured it will be in COM. If I am to look for a US company's online presence, I cannot be assured it will be in COM or US. However, if I look for a UK company's online presence, I know it will be in CO.UK. What is the purpose in having ANY registry if "self-defining" labels are your goal? Automated systems can arbitrate transactions better than people; if there's so much activity that you cannot get a request in for a 'popular' TLD or SLD, then isn't that your problem? What "ecommerce" exists presently is entirely because of ease and convenience, not because of any domain. When customers are asked _why_ they performed transactions online, the answer is not because of any "self-defining branding", rather because of convenience, ease, privacy, speed, avoiding salespeople, or the "gosh, wow" sense-of-wonder whizz-bang factor. [self-defining labels applying to the US domain] > Isn't this for the marketplace to decide? Marketplace of ideas, yes. Marketplace of bottom-line profits? No. Just because the DoC is the steward of the issue and this list does not mean we should be blinkered and blinded by the _current_ success of budding ecommerce. The issue at hand is _management_ of a name space, not creating an electronic advertizing index. It is up to particpants and users of the name space to creative indices, directory services, etc. It is VERY reasonable to ask if, in part of whatever registry process comes out of our discussions, the registry should run a directory service? If it should be hooked into the DNS tree somewhere [DIRSERV.US]? If the registering entity should have a "self-defining" choice as how they wish to appear in this directory and what the process would be to modify it, etc etc. But we mustn't take the short-sighted approach that what we have today is the best that _will_ exist! If we hobble the US DNS based upon the currently popular protocols and specific software manufacturers behavior, we are pushing for stasis. We would be taking the infrastructure framework that has bred the innovation for today's successes and narrowing the focus to, in effect, reduce the scope over which new innovations can take place. Further, any approach to bend the DNS to the behavior of one or two software products is a silent endorsement of those software products and the standards-breaking behavior they exemplify. If vendors are encouraged to break internet standards rather than formalize the unwritten ones and participate in the creation of new standards, we may as well call it the beginning of the end of the global Internet. RFC1480 has -as with any RFC- always been open for improvements. No credible proposals came up while Jon was around, and frankly I find none of the current proposal to be desirable or credible either. Cheers, Joe Provo http://www.gweep.net/~crimson/pgp.txt crimson@sidehack.gweep.net * jprovo@gnu.ai.mit.edu * jzp@rsuc.gweep.net Disclaimer: "I'm the only one foolish enough to claim these opinions." RSUC / GweepNet / Spunk / AAC / FnB / Usenix / SAGE . Received: by MILSERVMSX with Internet Mail Service (5.5.1960.3) id ; Tue, 18 May 1999 08:51:59 -0500 Message-ID: From: EJPhelps@MBF-LAW.com To: brett@lariat.org, jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com Cc: us-list@ntiant1.ntia.doc.gov Subject: RE: grandfathering of .us domains? Date: Tue, 18 May 1999 08:49:22 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.1960.3) Content-Type: text/plain > Brett Glass writes, among many other things: > Again, now that a judge has ruled that domain names are > property, the "takings" clause comes into play. > Why not? The domain name is property whether or not it is a > trademark -- or so says the judge. > The DOC cannot trample the Constitution. If domain names are property, > then they can't be appropriated without just compensation. Brett, Let me suggest that assuming that the single judge (in a VA state court, if I recall correctly, but I'm open to being corrected) who found domain names to be property for the limited purpose in which it was before him or her, is not what I would consider to be "settled law" worthy of great weight. There is a variety of legal precedent that would indicate that domain names are NOT property, and I believe that the agreement each person who registers a domain name with NSI must sign says this explicitly. If I had to pick a side in this fight right now (without having done research--a dangerous proposition), I would probably take the position that domain names are NOT property and the "takings" clause is not remotely implicated. While I do not profess to know what will ultimately be the "law" (and think anyone who does is also guessing, but afraid to admit it), I'd be a bit careful about assuming a lot based on this presumption....its a shaky foundation to start a house on. Caveat #1: My advice is probably worth what you paid for it. Caveat #2: My opinions are my own, and not necessarily that of my employer. Erik Phelps ejphelps@mbf-law.com . Received: from iciiu.org (slip-ppp-1-221.perfekt.net [205.230.176.221]) by perfekt.perfekt.net (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id JAA16594; Tue, 18 May 1999 09:57:55 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <374170DE.B8CA254D@iciiu.org> Date: Tue, 18 May 1999 09:53:34 -0400 From: Michael Sondow X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [fr] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Christopher.WILKINSON@DG13.cec.be CC: rmeyer@mhsc.com, owner-discuss@dnso.org, brett@lariat.org, us-list@ntiant1.ntia.doc.gov, pgf-usdom@foxharp.boston.ma.us, edyson@edventure.com, dnso-ip@world.std.com, discuss@dnso.org, rh120@columbia.edu Subject: Re: John Horvath's article on ICANN References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by perfekt.perfekt.net id JAA16594 Christopher.WILKINSON@DG13.cec.be a =E9crit: > Furthermore, the initial proposal for a not-for-profit constituency,=20 > including public sector users (local and regional authorities,=20 > health, education and research, cultural heritage etc.) was made=20 > by the European Commission at the Washington DNSO meeting and has=20 > since been adopted by the ICANN Board. Where, then, are the local and regional authorities, health, education and research, cultural heritage, etc.? Why haven't they communicated with ICANN and the groups forming the non-commercial constituency? Are they sending representatives to Berlin? . Received: (qmail 13241 invoked by uid 524); 18 May 1999 14:36:12 -0000 Date: 18 May 1999 14:36:12 -0000 Message-ID: <19990518143612.13240.qmail@sidehack.sat.gweep.net> From: "JZP" To: us-list@ntiant1.ntia.doc.gov Subject: Re: grandfathering of .us domains? The real question is not the whole "property debate". The real question was: pf>has there been any discussion of whether prior "holders" of .us pf>domain names will be permitted to continue using those names after pf>the current debate is resolved, in whatever fashion? ....and the answer is that at the March 9th meeting, everyone (proponents of different proposals, DoC folks, ISI folks, and misc others) agreed that there should be no problem at paralleling the old structure. The more drastic suggestions had it 'frozen'. Can we leave the "domain property debate" for another forum, or at least narrow the scope of the debate to US domains *only* and then only attack the subject either after the larger issues of competing proposals or as an agenda item on an overall discussion? Otherwise we're just going to drown in the noise of an issue that is difficult to solve, at best. Joe http://www.gweep.net/~crimson/pgp.txt crimson@sidehack.gweep.net * jprovo@gnu.ai.mit.edu * jzp@rsuc.gweep.net Disclaimer: "I'm the only one foolish enough to claim these opinions." RSUC / GweepNet / Spunk / AAC / FnB / Usenix / SAGE . Received: from [208.226.58.30] by exchange.netmagic.com (NTMail 3.03.0018/1.acsd) with ESMTP id za013051 for ; Tue, 18 May 1999 11:39:25 -0400 Message-Id: <4.2.0.37.19990518111851.00a9def0@mail.netmagic.com> X-Sender: amr@mail.netmagic.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.0.37 (Beta) Date: Tue, 18 May 1999 11:36:30 -0400 To: us-list@ntiant1.ntia.doc.gov From: "A.M. Rutkowski" Subject: "out of the box" thinking In-Reply-To: <19990518143612.13240.qmail@sidehack.sat.gweep.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Since the general topic here is US domain ontologies, and in light of the brainstorming nature of this list (because of the lack of regulatory jurisdiction), it's worth considering: o whether the creation of a USA 3-letter top level domain couldn't be used to enhance the ontological options. o whether a US.POST top and sub-level domain construct couldn't be attractive for the world's postal systems. This has actually been proposed by the Universal Postal Union in Berne and remains before UPU members. o how the existing official US domain under the ITU F.401 root maintained by the ANSI as the national registrar, as well as other similar legacy constructs, couldn't be better integrated into the DNS - perhaps with a new DNS resource type. o whether the US domain shouldn't be integrated into the ongoing Digital Object Identifier System development (See http://www.doi.org/) or its more generic brethren, Handle Systems (See http://www.handle.net/) --tony . Received: from cc103462a (cc103462-a.hwrd1.md.home.com [24.6.128.217]) by webk.net (8.9.3+3.2W/8.6.9) with SMTP id KAA03361; Tue, 18 May 1999 10:15:57 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <00d101bea152$3aaa92c0$d9800618@hwrd1.md.home.com> From: "John Hallman" To: , "A.M. Rutkowski" References: <4.2.0.37.19990518111851.00a9def0@mail.netmagic.com> Subject: Re: "out of the box" thinking Date: Tue, 18 May 1999 13:16:50 -0400 Organization: tothe.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2014.211 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2014.211 Yes, yes, yes, I agree and would like to be sure that .USA works it's way through the system when/if the TLD comes along! .us is nice, but .SU is better! If this list has any influence at all, I hope that this is able to come about! Ray Hallman UniWebs Corporation www.uniwebs.com ----- Original Message ----- From: A.M. Rutkowski To: Sent: Tuesday, May 18, 1999 11:36 AM Subject: "out of the box" thinking > Since the general topic here is US domain ontologies, > and in light of the brainstorming nature of this list > (because of the lack of regulatory jurisdiction), it's > worth considering: > > o whether the creation of a USA 3-letter top level domain > couldn't be used to enhance the ontological options. > > o whether a US.POST top and sub-level domain construct > couldn't be attractive for the world's postal systems. > This has actually been proposed by the Universal Postal > Union in Berne and remains before UPU members. > > o how the existing official US domain under the ITU > F.401 root maintained by the ANSI as the national > registrar, as well as other similar legacy constructs, > couldn't be better integrated into the DNS - perhaps > with a new DNS resource type. > > o whether the US domain shouldn't be integrated into > the ongoing Digital Object Identifier System development > (See http://www.doi.org/) or its more generic brethren, > Handle Systems (See http://www.handle.net/) > > > --tony > . Received: (from longshot@localhost) by Nexus.MNIC.Net (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id MAA01488 for us-list@ntiant1.ntia.doc.gov; Tue, 18 May 1999 12:37:00 -0500 From: Erik Green Message-Id: <199905181737.MAA01488@Nexus.MNIC.Net> Subject: Re: "out of the box" thinking To: us-list@ntiant1.ntia.doc.gov Date: Tue, 18 May 1999 12:37:00 -0500 (CDT) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > Since the general topic here is US domain ontologies, > and in light of the brainstorming nature of this list > (because of the lack of regulatory jurisdiction), it's > worth considering: I realize that the brainstorming process, at least how I remember it from third grade, doesn't involve culling of ideas. However, a few comments: > o whether the creation of a USA 3-letter top level domain > couldn't be used to enhance the ontological options. Any number of new TLDs could, as you put it, "enhance the ontological options". This however doesn't address the problem this list was formed to address, IE what will happen with the pre-existing and in use .us domain? Do we get to keep using it, or will we have to give it up due to excessive administration by various agencies? Note that using the domain under the aegis of the various agencies who claim some authority over it isn't an option. I'm regulated enough now, thanks. > o whether a US.POST top and sub-level domain construct > couldn't be attractive for the world's postal systems. > This has actually been proposed by the Universal Postal > Union in Berne and remains before UPU members. I'm sure it would be attractive. I'm not a post office, however, so I don't care. (pardon my bluntness) > o how the existing official US domain under the ITU > F.401 root maintained by the ANSI as the national > registrar, as well as other similar legacy constructs, > couldn't be better integrated into the DNS - perhaps > with a new DNS resource type. Technical solutions to social or political problems are always a bad idea. There's no technical problem with the US domain. The problem is that there is conflict over the domain due to different ideas about who it "belongs" to. Since the second and third level domains under the US domain mostly reference localities, the various authorities in those localities have gotten the idea that they're entitled to certain domain names because the names match the names of their localities. Like all their other resources, they want control over them. To avoid liability, ISI has in the past furthered this idea somewhat, requiring written permission from authorities in the localities for use of the corresponding domains. This caused many pains for people who had been used to the good faith system the US domain had previously operated on, where delegations were handed out free (usually) by domain users and ISI, and no paperwork was required beyond a simple e-mail form. The conflict over who the previously free US domain should belong to grew large enough to attract the attention of the US government, which feels it has authority over the domain for a variety of reasons, including the US at the end of the domain, general authority over all things internet, and the obligation to resolve disputes between large groups of citizens. This is, by the way, a really bad trend in government, IMHO. > o whether the US domain shouldn't be integrated into > the ongoing Digital Object Identifier System development > (See http://www.doi.org/) or its more generic brethren, > Handle Systems (See http://www.handle.net/) Moot question. We have to see what happens to the US domain first. Personally, I'm trying to avoid having to change my existing US domains to something else, so I'd prefer an outcome where I could keep them. If that's not the case, however, it's pretty likely that I'll participate/ support the creation of a new locality-based domain, maybe USA, maybe something else, that can be used in place of the US domain. We don't even need the US government to authorize such a move - we can publish whatever information we want in our DNS servers. The only problem, as the Alternic people found out, is getting everyone to integrate a new set of root servers into the existing DNS system. When it comes right down to it, though, I'm just trying to avoid changing lots of domains when I shouldn't have to. Erik -- Erik Green Chief Engineer, Internet Connections Inc. erik@mnic.net . Received: from [208.226.58.30] by exchange.netmagic.com (NTMail 3.03.0018/1.acsd) with ESMTP id da013081 for ; Tue, 18 May 1999 15:29:30 -0400 Message-Id: <4.2.0.37.19990518151704.00aa6eb0@mail.netmagic.com> X-Sender: amr@mail.netmagic.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.0.37 (Beta) Date: Tue, 18 May 1999 15:26:37 -0400 To: Erik Green , us-list@ntiant1.ntia.doc.gov From: "A.M. Rutkowski" Subject: Re: "out of the box" thinking In-Reply-To: <199905181737.MAA01488@Nexus.MNIC.Net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=====================_524453654==_.ALT" --=====================_524453654==_.ALT Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed At 01:37 PM 5/18/99 , Erik Green wrote: >options". This however doesn't address the problem this list was >formed to address, IE what will happen with the pre-existing and in >use .us domain? Do we get to keep using it, or will we have to >give it up due to excessive administration by various agencies? My impression was that the purpose of the list was much broader than this. It seems unlikely that the current zones under US will be somehow confiscated and reallocated. The legal issues - not to mention the practicalities - would likely preclude that. >Note that using the domain under the aegis of the various agencies who >claim some authority over it isn't an option. I'm regulated enough >now, thanks. Who claims authority? And on what basis? >grew large enough to attract the attention of the US government, which >feels it has authority over the domain for a variety of reasons, >including the US at the end of the domain, general authority over all >things internet, and the obligation to resolve disputes between large >groups of citizens. This is, by the way, a really bad trend in Playing a role in facilitating a private-sector consensus is one thing, claiming "general authority" is another. I've not seen the latter claim. --tony --=====================_524453654==_.ALT Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" At 01:37 PM 5/18/99 , Erik Green wrote:

options".  This however doesn't address the problem this list was
formed to address, IE what will happen with the pre-existing and in
use .us domain?  Do we get to keep using it, or will we have to
give it up due to excessive administration by various agencies?

My impression was that the purpose of the list was much broader
than this.  It seems unlikely that the current zones under US
will be somehow confiscated and reallocated.  The legal issues -
not to mention the practicalities - would likely preclude that.


Note that using the domain under the aegis of the various agencies who
claim some authority over it isn't an option.  I'm regulated enough
now, thanks.

Who claims authority?  And on what basis?


grew large enough to attract the attention of the US government, which
feels it has authority over the domain for a variety of reasons,
including the US at the end of the domain, general authority over all
things internet, and the obligation to resolve disputes between large
groups of citizens.  This is, by the way, a really bad trend in

Playing a role in facilitating a private-sector consensus
is one thing, claiming "general authority" is another.
I've not seen the latter claim.


--tony --=====================_524453654==_.ALT-- . Received: (qmail 28160 invoked by uid 524); 18 May 1999 20:28:24 -0000 Date: 18 May 1999 20:28:24 -0000 Message-ID: <19990518202824.28159.qmail@sidehack.sat.gweep.net> From: "JZP" To: us-list@ntiant1.ntia.doc.gov Subject: Re: "out of the box" thinking In-Reply-To: <4.2.0.37.19990518151704.00aa6eb0@mail.netmagic.com> [snip] > >options". This however doesn't address the problem this list was > >formed to address, IE what will happen with the pre-existing and in > >use .us domain? Do we get to keep using it, or will we have to > >give it up due to excessive administration by various agencies? > > My impression was that the purpose of the list was much broader > than this. Not "much", but yes. This list is "for public discussions regarding the future management and administration of the .us domain space." [http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/usrfc/dotuslistfedreg51099.htm] So legacy space concerns are at issue here, updating RFC1480 would make sense here. Wild ramblings that consume other lists, eg domain-policy, are far offtopic. Joe http://www.gweep.net/~crimson/pgp.txt crimson@sidehack.gweep.net * jprovo@gnu.ai.mit.edu * jzp@rsuc.gweep.net Disclaimer: "I'm the only one foolish enough to claim these opinions." RSUC / GweepNet / Spunk / AAC / FnB / Usenix / SAGE . Received: from mustang.lariat.org (IDENT:ppp0.lariat.org@lariat.lariat.org [206.100.185.2]) by lariat.lariat.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA05916; Tue, 18 May 1999 11:36:37 -0600 (MDT) Message-Id: <4.2.0.37.19990518113409.044f1640@localhost> X-Sender: brett@localhost X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.0.37 (Beta) Date: Tue, 18 May 1999 11:36:30 -0600 To: "A.M. Rutkowski" , us-list@ntiant1.ntia.doc.gov From: Brett Glass Subject: Re: "out of the box" thinking In-Reply-To: <4.2.0.37.19990518111851.00a9def0@mail.netmagic.com> References: <19990518143612.13240.qmail@sidehack.sat.gweep.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" These ideas are interesting, but they don't really get us outside the box. Adding another TLD doesn't solve the problem; it merely dilutes it. Adding more DNS resource types does not solve the problem that one company will still have a monopoly on the root servers. And we have not addressed the property issue. --Brett Glass At 11:36 AM 5/18/99 -0400, A.M. Rutkowski wrote: >Since the general topic here is US domain ontologies, >and in light of the brainstorming nature of this list >(because of the lack of regulatory jurisdiction), it's >worth considering: > >o whether the creation of a USA 3-letter top level domain > couldn't be used to enhance the ontological options. > >o whether a US.POST top and sub-level domain construct > couldn't be attractive for the world's postal systems. > This has actually been proposed by the Universal Postal > Union in Berne and remains before UPU members. > >o how the existing official US domain under the ITU > F.401 root maintained by the ANSI as the national > registrar, as well as other similar legacy constructs, > couldn't be better integrated into the DNS - perhaps > with a new DNS resource type. > >o whether the US domain shouldn't be integrated into > the ongoing Digital Object Identifier System development > (See http://www.doi.org/) or its more generic brethren, > Handle Systems (See http://www.handle.net/) > > >--tony . Received: from mustang.lariat.org (IDENT:ppp0.lariat.org@lariat.lariat.org [206.100.185.2]) by lariat.lariat.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA05445; Tue, 18 May 1999 10:45:01 -0600 (MDT) Message-Id: <4.2.0.37.19990518103345.00b53330@localhost> X-Sender: brett@localhost X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.0.37 (Beta) Date: Tue, 18 May 1999 10:44:55 -0600 To: EJPhelps@MBF-LAW.com, jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com From: Brett Glass Subject: RE: grandfathering of .us domains? Cc: us-list@ntiant1.ntia.doc.gov In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 08:49 AM 5/18/99 -0500, EJPhelps@MBF-LAW.com wrote: >Brett, >Let me suggest that assuming that the single judge (in a VA state court, >if I recall correctly, but I'm open to being corrected) who found domain >names to be property for the limited purpose in which it was before him >or her, is not what I would consider to be "settled law" worthy of great >weight. While nothing can be considered "settled law" until it reaches the U.S. Supreme Court, the judge's ruling is well considered and has received high praise from many lawyers whose specialty is intellectual property. It's an important precedent, and it would be unwise to write it off. >There is a variety of legal precedent that would indicate that domain >names are NOT property, and I believe that the agreement each person who >registers a domain name with NSI must sign says this explicitly. A contract cannot turn property into "non-property." Also, NSI's contract in particular can be considered a "contract of attachment" -- that is, one which one MUST sign because there is no other choice. Provisions in such contracts are, as I'm sure you're aware, routinely invalidated because there is duress. You simply can't have a presence on the Internet without filling out NSI's forms! >If I >had to pick a side in this fight right now (without having done >research--a dangerous proposition), I would probably take the position >that domain names are NOT property and the "takings" clause is not >remotely implicated. For the two reasons mentioned above, I would argue that domain names are property. Whether it's a good idea to set up a system in which the names are effectively property (with, in some cases, absurdly high valuations) is another question. My personal opinion is that they should not, and that this is one of the ways in which the current system is dysfunctional. When names become "turf," there will inevitably be turf wars. Instead of digging in for the conflict, we must instead defuse it. This cannot be done simply by asserting that domains names aren't property, since the assertion does nothing to change the realities of the situation. The correct thing to do is to change the system. --Brett Glass . Received: from mustang.lariat.org (IDENT:ppp0.lariat.org@lariat.lariat.org [206.100.185.2]) by lariat.lariat.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA05583; Tue, 18 May 1999 11:00:28 -0600 (MDT) Message-Id: <4.2.0.37.19990518104545.045fbf00@localhost> X-Sender: brett@localhost X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.0.37 (Beta) Date: Tue, 18 May 1999 10:52:10 -0600 To: Michael Sondow , Christopher.WILKINSON@DG13.cec.be From: Brett Glass Subject: Re: John Horvath's article on ICANN Cc: rmeyer@mhsc.com, owner-discuss@dnso.org, us-list@ntiant1.ntia.doc.gov, pgf-usdom@foxharp.boston.ma.us, edyson@edventure.com, dnso-ip@world.std.com, discuss@dnso.org, rh120@columbia.edu In-Reply-To: <374170DE.B8CA254D@iciiu.org> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" My guess is that they have no idea of what is going on at all. Some of my pro bono work is directed toward helping non-profits to get on the Internet, and most of their workers with whom I have had contact consider themselves to be educated if they know how to start the Web browser and click on a link. They are not knowledgeable about the issues or about how decisions reagarding the naming of hosts on the Internet might affect them. Some organizations (including the local family planning clinic in my community) have administrators who are so frightened by the Internet that they actively refuse offers of free Web space, e-mail, etc. when we extend them. Nor do I think that such organizations are likely to have the funds to send representatives to a conference in Berlin. --Brett Glass At 09:53 AM 5/18/99 -0400, Michael Sondow wrote: >Where, then, are the local and regional authorities, health, >education and research, cultural heritage, etc.? Why haven't they >communicated with ICANN and the groups forming the non-commercial >constituency? Are they sending representatives to Berlin? . Received: from mustang.lariat.org (IDENT:ppp0.lariat.org@lariat.lariat.org [206.100.185.2]) by lariat.lariat.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA00863; Mon, 17 May 1999 23:11:07 -0600 (MDT) Message-Id: <4.2.0.37.19990517224204.044ba3c0@localhost> X-Sender: brett@localhost X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.0.37 (Beta) Date: Mon, 17 May 1999 23:11:04 -0600 To: Jeff Williams From: Brett Glass Subject: Re: grandfathering of .us domains? Cc: pgf-usdom@foxharp.boston.ma.us, us-list@ntiant1.ntia.doc.gov, "edyson@edventure.com" , Domain policy , dnsproc-en , dnso-ip , ICANN SO comments In-Reply-To: <374081A8.FAD730A9@ix.netcom.com> References: <18416.926975974@foxharp.boston.ma.us> <4.2.0.37.19990517161828.044e8ef0@localhost> <4.2.0.37.19990517170156.009f9100@localhost> <4.2.0.37.19990517185739.00b39bd0@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed At 09:52 PM 5/17/99 +0100, Jeff Williams wrote: >Takings clause can be overridden under certain circumstances, such as >some of those that WIPO and ICANN would suggest, such as offensive >Domain names, or Domains that have a content that may be offensive >to the internet community in their opinion. Being offensive isn't sufficient either from a "takings" perspective or a First Amendment perspective. (Political speech can offend but is heavily protected; thus, a domain such as "clintonsucks.com", surely could not be taken.) If there's ANY redeeming social value, or if the site involves politics, it's doubtful that anyone has the authority to take it away. >True, but you will need to have a substantial sum, at least for some >mom and pop business with a Domain Name dispute of some sort, >to be able to adjudicate it or even possibly worse to arbitrate it under >WIPO's ADR arbitration procedure. Hmmm. Is it legal for Congress to authorize a foreign body to take citizens' goods without compensation unless a crime has been committed? It does not have that authority itself under the Constitution, so it seems unlikely that it could delegate it. >> Why not? The domain name is property whether or not it is a trademark -- or so > > says the judge. Bankrupt companies have already auctioned off names > that were > > dictionary words -- rather than trademarks -- as part of the > liquidation process. > > I agree completely with you and the various judges that have ruled in > this manner. But >ICANN and WIPO do not agree with your contention here. Hence, we >have a serious disjunctive. The current system leads to this sort of disagreement -- a sign that it is dysfunctional. A better system would not sow this sort of conflict or require policing. >> A good naming scheme for the Internet would help > > us to avoid such obviously awkward and unfair situations rather than making > > them an everyday occurrence. > > I completely agree. And several have been suggested. Even and extension >of the existing DNS system that would accomplish this with additional >TLD's and additional Root servers in a shared root server structure would >elevate much of this problem in several obvious ways. I have suggested >such an idea, but ICANN want's to stick with the existing legacy system. The problem with new TLDs, as a solution, is that without abolishing .COM we will still have a problem in that realm. And people will fight over who gets to administer the new ones. And on and on. I fear that adding more TLDs would DILUTE the problem but retain a dysfunctional paradigm. >> The DOC cannot trample the Constitution. If domain names are property, > > then they can't be appropriated without just compensation. > > True, it is however difficult in some cases to make an accurate evaluation >as to what that value is or might be over time. The market value of some domain names may be quite high. I understand that LINUX.COM has been bid up to dizzying heights, for example. >> The Domain Name System isn't "the real world." It's an artifice -- only one > > of many possible ways of naming computers and resources on the Internet. > > Yes, but is is PART of the real world now. It's a prototype -- not a bad one for its time, but now outmoded -- that's served its purpose. Systems evolve; societies evolve; software and network protocols evolve. It's time for the next generation. >> What would the characteristics of such a scheme be? Among other things, it would: > > > > 1. Allow for multiple entities with the same name without according > special > > privilege or advantage to any of them; > > 2. Prevent a single entity (in particular, a business) from seizing > exclusive > > use of a generic term, such as the name of a commodity; > > 3. Prevent newcomers to a market or business category from being > disadvantaged > > relative to existing players; > > 4. Allow for truly decentralized registration and operation (so as to > avoid the > > current disastrous situation in which one company holds the keys > to the > > kingdom and refuses to relinquish them); > > 5. Resist tampering (It's currently FAR too easy to muck up someone's > > domain registration by impersonating him or her in a message to > InterNIC); > > 6. Enable instantaneous changes to primary server IP numbers, rather > than requiring > > an overnight wait (so as to allow for an immediate shift to a > backup in case of > > disaster); > > 7. Provide a more generalized database of information rather than > just a database > > of IP numbers, host names, and mail servers; > > 8. Protect registrants' privacy and avoid exposing them to spam; > > 9. Make it simpler to set up and update secondary servers; and > > 10. Provide hooks for backward compatibility so that the transition to > a new > > and better system can be graceful. > > Good points all here. And I would add, that many have been suggested >before as well as what I suggested as a extension of the existing legacy >root structure of the DNS would provide for. Some of the concepts CAN be extended; we've definitely learned some good lessons about what works and what doesn't. But adding more TLDs doesn't change the STRUCTURE; it just adds more items to it. I'd propose looking at some fundamentally different ways of finding what one is after on the Net. --Brett Glass . Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix13.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id RAA22965; Mon, 17 May 1999 17:48:34 -0500 (CDT) Received: from dal-tx49-14.ix.netcom.com(198.211.45.142) by dfw-ix13.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma022852; Mon May 17 17:47:55 1999 Message-ID: <37402F6A.E18BADE6@ix.netcom.com> Date: Mon, 17 May 1999 16:02:06 +0100 From: Jeff Williams Organization: INEG. Inc. X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.08 [en] (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Brett Glass CC: pgf-usdom@foxharp.boston.ma.us, us-list@ntiant1.ntia.doc.gov, "edyson@edventure.com" , Domain policy , dnsproc-en , dnso-ip , DNSO Subject: Re: grandfathering of .us domains? References: <18416.926975974@foxharp.boston.ma.us> <4.2.0.37.19990517161828.044e8ef0@localhost> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Brett and all, Brett Glass wrote: > The problem is that there is no good, objective criterion by which one > can define "squatting." Yes, in some cases, it's clear that someone is > out to extort money from a large national or multinational corporation. > But in other cases, the issue is not as clear cut. > > Imagine the following scenario. Someone announces his intent to start > a new company, and -- since getting the name as a domain is becoming > a prerequisite -- registers a desired name as a domain name prior to > getting his new company started. (This is actually a smart move nowadays, > since a new company can ill afford to name itself anything that CANNOT be > secured as a domain.) > > He then submits his business plan to some VCs to raise money. His > company may not open its doors for a good 6 months at this point, but > he has wisely secured the domain for it even though the business is > not running. The VCs may not even fund the company if it cannot secure > a recognizable domain. Yes I have seen this very thing happen on occasion. > > > Now comes an existing company that either wants the name, does not want > to see a new competitor emerge, or is doing business in another field > under that name. It files a claim of "squatting." > > What happens? There is no company yet, though there is a clear intent to > establish one. The existing company will clearly have deeper pockets > and possibly political clout. Who wins? And who decides? FIrst come first serve, should remain the rule as ti applies to Domain Names. > > > Clearly, the entire notion of "owning" a word from the dictionary is > flawed. This is the shifting sand on which the entire domain name > system is built, and it's a very poor foundation on which to construct > our future. But is JEFF.COM a word, for example? No it is not. It is a "String of characters" or a Domain name perhaps? Perhaps. But not a word. Same with Ford.com, ect, ect, ect.... Now, Ford is a proper name and as part to a name of a company known as Ford Motor Company. Does Joe Shmoe that registered Ford.com long before Ford Motor Company did have rights to that Domain Name or does the TM holder Ford Motor company have greater rights. The same will apply in the .US ccTLD name space for many of the same/similar situations... Are they to be grandfathered "As Is"? I say yes. But WIPO will definatly disagree as likely than not, will ICANN. And this was the essence of my original posts point.... > > > --Brett Glass > > At 03:13 PM 5/17/99 +0100, Jeff Williams wrote: > >Paul and all, > > > > Though I agree with your position here with regard to your > >DN in .US, I am quite sure given the current trend from ICANN > >and the DNSO structure that has been jury-rigged, you would get some > >serious argument on your position here. > > > > And of course WIPO would find fault in your position as their > >"Final Report" indicates quite clearly. DN squatting, as THEY define it, > >if seriously frowned upon.... > > > >pgf-usdom@foxharp.boston.ma.us wrote: > >> > >has there been any discussion of whether prior "holders" of .us > >> > >domain names will be permitted to continue using those names after > >> > >the current debate is resolved, in whatever fashion? > >> ... > >> > You should set your expectations at the highest possible level. A > >> > judge has recently ruled that domain names are property. If your > >> > domain name is taken away from you by government, you very likely > >> > have a cause of action under the "takings" clause of the US > >> > Constitution. > >> > >>as much as i like the sound of this, the fact is that i have never > >>paid any money for the use of my domain. i suppose in a court i could > >>assert "squatter's rights", or somesuch, but i wouldn't be at all > >>surprised if that didn't work either. > >> > >>i suppose that if domains _are_ considered "owned" by their current > >>users, then any future organization of .us along different lines sort > >>of requires that such use occur in new second-level domains under .us, > >>and not in the existing hierarchy. i.e. say the post office gets > >>control of .us -- they then would have to, in perpetuity, maintain an > >>exception list to whatever scheme they put in place. if instead they > >>simply began operating under "post.us", there would be no conflict > >>between their use and the current, um, free-for-all. > >> > >>paul > >>=--------------------- > >> paul fox, pgf@foxharp.boston.ma.us (arlington, ma, where it's 64.2 degrees) > >Regards, > > > >-- > >Jeffrey A. Williams > >CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng. > >Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC. > >E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com > >Contact Number: 972-447-1894 > >Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208 > > -- Jeffrey A. Williams CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng. Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC. E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com Contact Number: 972-447-1894 Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208 . Received: from iciiu.org (slip-ppp-1-205.perfekt.net [205.230.176.205]) by perfekt.perfekt.net (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id XAA27130; Tue, 18 May 1999 23:44:12 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <37423284.20D440BC@iciiu.org> Date: Tue, 18 May 1999 23:39:48 -0400 From: Michael Sondow X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [fr] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Brett Glass CC: Christopher.WILKINSON@DG13.cec.be, rmeyer@mhsc.com, owner-discuss@dnso.org, us-list@ntiant1.ntia.doc.gov, pgf-usdom@foxharp.boston.ma.us, edyson@edventure.com, dnso-ip@world.std.com, discuss@dnso.org, rh120@columbia.edu Subject: Re: John Horvath's article on ICANN References: <4.2.0.37.19990518104545.045fbf00@localhost> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by perfekt.perfekt.net id XAA27130 Brett Glass a =E9crit: >=20 > My guess is that they have no idea of what is going on at all. Well, most of them don't. Not yet. But they will before too much longer. Some already do, the larger ones that take an active part in technology issues, like the large consumer groups and other public-interest organizations. To get an idea of them, take alook at the participant list for the WTO's conference on e-commerce and Internet governance, set for next fall, or the FTC conference in June. One of the ICIIU's strongest supporters is the head of the communications committee of a community board in New York that represents a community of 125,000 people in Queens, and that is trying to create community-wide IP networking. The process of public awareness is slow, but inexorable. .