I was indeed referring to a subject in another thread but I'm happy that
you think it could be useful.
I think that a "is/is not" list on domain names (e.g. among other
things, it is *not* a trademark) is perhaps the best way (practically
and politically) to (orthogonally, yes) impart some rights to individual
name holders. Your comment made me think of that, in the context of that
other PI thread.
Other ideas for a list of "a name is/is not" [SLDs and TLDs are name]
- simply an address, not a destination
- a form of expression (and is thus permissionless)
- distinct from the content to which they lead
- only a small part of the DNS: it cannot monopolize meaning
- global, not local or national
- an SLD is a name
- a TLD is a name
...
Nicolas
On 31/12/2014 8:09 AM, Timothe Litt wrote:
> I think you're conflating my comments with another thread.
>
> I'm not suggesting a trip down the Public Interest rabbit hole.
>
> Rather, as an individual domain name holder, I'd simply like to see
> individual domain name holders' have rights to their names under
> ICANN policy, defined in such a way as to be enforcible under
> relevant law. (Or change the laws...a bigger task.) At present, the
> playing surface is nearly vertical - trademark holders and organizations
> anchored at the top, individual domain name holders (barely
> acknowledged) at
> the bottom. See my previous follow-up post for an expanded discussion,
> in a separate thread.
>
> ===
>
> I have no objection to a 'domain name is/is not' list. Although I think
> that's orthogonal to my comments, it would be useful - if we can agree
> on the list.
>
> Frankly, I think everyone involved (including this group) has
> gone overboard in overloading domain name semantics. They're just a
> name for an (ip) address (or set of addresses) that *humans find
> easier to**
> **remember* and that *allow the address(es) for a service to change*
> without
> invalidating the name. The latter is good for both automatons and humans.
>
> People need to be able to *obtain names that they like*, and *maintain
> control**
> **of the name* once *assigned*.
>
> Everything else is unnecessary (but very human, and real)
> distraction/complication.
> That includes 'human rights', 'freedom of expression', 'cultural
> sensitivity', 'geographic
> names', 'trademarks', 'monetization of the DNS', and all the other
> hot-button issues.
>
> Take a deep breath, step back and take a reality check.
>
> As the Saudi example and others that I've cited show, attempting to
> regulate valid
> names runs into a morass of cultural issues that can't be resolved.
> Attempts to do
> so will consume endless energy, and are ultimately doomed to failure
> in the trans-
> national, world-wide, cross-cultural internet.
>
> I fall back to a simple axiom (with apologies to K&R): "*Be tolerant
> in the names that**
> **you accept, and as strict as you like in those that you generate.* "
> If people pick names
> that offend you, don't use them/do business with them. Those people
> will get the
> message; people who want you to use their services will take care not
> to offend you.
>
> It's no different from picking a business name, or the name for a
> child. If you call your
> hotel 'The Certain Deathtrap for Penguins', you're unlikely to have
> Penguins for guests.
> If you call your child 'Mohamed the True Prophet' in Tehran, he may
> have a short life;
> though the same name in San Francisco would offend some, but be protected.
>
> Should trademark holders have priority in obtaining their trademarks
> as names?
> Sure - *when individual domain name holders have priority in obtaining
> their*
> family names, pet's names, boat's names, etc... Oh, that's unworkable?
:)
> Well, so
> is trademark priority for most holders - 'yellow sled' is probably a
> trademark of
> small business in multiple countries, but only one can be
> yellowsled.transport.
> Fine for big business, international non-profits. But the little guy?
> Nope.
> And if you think that's weird, from an e-mail received this morning(1):
>> © 2014 United Parcel Service of America, Inc. UPS, the UPS brandmark,
>> and
>> *the color brown are trademarks* of United Parcel Service of America,
>> Inc.
>> All rights reserved.
>
> Finally, all this*focus on the domain name's overloaded semantics is
> really **a tempest**
> **in a teacup*. Much more significant is what *content *is served by
> the system(s) behind the
> name. I'm much more concerned with a system that distributes malware
> than whether it's
> named 'Jesus', 'Mohamed', or 'Charles'. Oddly enough, I'm a strong
> supporter of Intellectual
> Property (including trademark) rights, which should be enforced where
> they count - on
> *content*, not names. It doesn't matter if your website is served by
> 'pinksquare.org'. However,
> if the content of the website solicits funds fraudulently (e.g. by
> misrepresenting itself as
> collecting for the owner of the PinkSquare trademark), that *content
> *is actionable. And yes,
> revoking ownership of the name may be a suitable remedy. But if the
> website's content
> is not impersonating the PinkSquare organization, and if it has a
> prominent disclaimer
> ('this website is not associated with PinkSquare(tm)...'), there's no
> reason to get excited.
>
> And the really good news is that *regulating content has absolutely
> nothing to do with**
> **ICANN*!
>
> However, this should be another thread...
>
> (1) US TM reg # appears to be 2131693 for trucks; see
> http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4802:4te38m.8.26
> and others (for uniforms, caps, etc), available at
> http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=toc&state=4802%3A4te38m.1.1&p_search=searchss&p_L=50&BackReference=6&p_plural=yes&p_s_PARA1=&p_tagrepl~%3A=PARA1%24LD&expr=PARA1+AND+PARA2&p_s_PARA2=&p_tagrepl~%3A=PARA2%24COMB&p_op_ALL=AND&a_default=search&a_search=Submit+Query&a_search=Submit+Query
> <http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=toc&state=4802%3A4te38m.1.1&p_search=searchss&p_L=50&BackReference=6&p_plural=yes&p_s_PARA1=&p_tagrepl%7E%3A=PARA1%24LD&expr=PARA1+AND+PARA2&p_s_PARA2=&p_tagrepl%7E%3A=PARA2%24COMB&p_op_ALL=AND&a_default=search&a_search=Submit+Query&a_search=Submit+Query>
> Timothe Litt
> ACM Distinguished Engineer
> --------------------------
> This communication may not represent the ACM or my employer's views,
> if any, on the matters discussed.
> This communication may not represent my employer's views,
> if any, on the matters discussed.
> On 30-Dec-14 09:49, Nicolas Adam wrote:
>> <html>
>> <head>
>> <meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
>> http-equiv="Content-Type">
>> </head>
>> <body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
>> It'd be probably more useful to have a definition of nice things
>> that a domain name is (that is, nice things that a domain name ought
>> to be, but that we conveniently confuse with nice things that a
>> domain name is in our definition) than to have a definition of the
>> PI (although this was very constructive and I support the work on PI
>> framing). This would be more workable than the latter also, would
>> probably have more tooth and would be more difficult to oppose if
>> well crafted (it's hard to muster a sustained opposition to the
>> apple pie for example).<br>
>> <br>
>> For instance, domain names are <br>
>> <ul>
>> <li><br>
>> </li>
>> <li>an alphanumeric string with meaning<br>
>> </li>
>> <li>endlessly creative, their meaning is non-rival (you can always
>> come up with another string that will mean the same)</li>
>> <li>gateways by which Internet innovation reaches us<br>
>> </li>
>> <li>levelers of the Internet ecosystem's field and enablers of
>> fair competition</li>
>> <li>our roadmap to the open internet they are reachable and
>> uncensorable</li>
>> <li><br>
>> </li>
>> </ul>
>> That kind of approach would be more rights-based. I don't know if
>> this is an interesting idea let alone a relevant one, but ... I have
>> my fingers connected directly with my brain with no filter this
>> morning so I'm throwing this out there. The definition points above
>> are absolutely lacking but they convey the idea.<br>
>> <br>
>> Nicolas<br>
>> <br>
>> <br>
>> <div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 29/12/2014 5:25 PM, Timothe Litt
>> wrote:<br>
>> </div>
>> <blockquote cite="mid:[log in to unmask]" type="cite"><br>
>> But one of these days it would be nice to change the conversation
>> to include how to create and protect the rights of non-corporate
>> domain name holders. </blockquote>
>> <br>
>> </body>
>> </html>
>>
>> </body>
>> </html>
>> </html>
>
|
