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

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: