Received: (qmail 24808 invoked from network); 17 May 1999 21:19:53 -0000 Received: from gutso.foxharp.boston.ma.us (192.168.111.9) by firethorn.foxharp.boston.ma.us with SMTP; 17 May 1999 21:19:53 -0000 Received: (qmail 18420 invoked from network); 17 May 1999 21:19:35 -0000 Received: from localhost (HELO foxharp) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 17 May 1999 21:19:35 -0000 To: us-list@ntiant1.ntia.doc.gov From: pgf-usdom@foxharp.boston.ma.us Subject: Re: grandfathering of .us domains? In-reply-to: brett's message of Fri, 14 May 1999 18:05:15 -0600. <4.2.0.37.19990514180407.0454dec0@localhost> Reply-to: pgf-usdom@foxharp.boston.ma.us MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <18414.926975974.1@foxharp.boston.ma.us> Date: Mon, 17 May 1999 17:19:34 -0400 Message-ID: <18416.926975974@foxharp.boston.ma.us> Sender: pgf@foxharp.boston.ma.us > >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) . Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix6.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id QAA25385; Mon, 17 May 1999 16:59:44 -0500 (CDT) Received: from dal-tx49-14.ix.netcom.com(198.211.45.142) by dfw-ix6.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma025309; Mon May 17 16:59:27 1999 Message-ID: <37402414.5F7D2F60@ix.netcom.com> Date: Mon, 17 May 1999 15:13:42 +0100 From: Jeff Williams Organization: INEG. Inc. X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.08 [en] (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: pgf-usdom@foxharp.boston.ma.us CC: 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> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------2CC0C955239456B3DADD9D39" --------------2CC0C955239456B3DADD9D39 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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 --------------2CC0C955239456B3DADD9D39 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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
  --------------2CC0C955239456B3DADD9D39-- . Received: (qmail 26217 invoked from network); 17 May 1999 22:36:57 -0000 Received: from gutso.foxharp.boston.ma.us (192.168.111.9) by firethorn.foxharp.boston.ma.us with SMTP; 17 May 1999 22:36:57 -0000 Received: (qmail 2811 invoked from network); 17 May 1999 22:36:37 -0000 Received: from localhost (HELO foxharp) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 17 May 1999 22:36:37 -0000 To: Jeff Williams From: pgf-usdom@foxharp.boston.ma.us Subject: Re: grandfathering of .us domains? cc: us-list@ntiant1.ntia.doc.gov In-reply-to: jwkckid1's message of Mon, 17 May 1999 15:13:42 +0100. <37402414.5F7D2F60@ix.netcom.com> Reply-to: pgf-usdom@foxharp.boston.ma.us MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <2772.926980593.1@foxharp.boston.ma.us> Date: Mon, 17 May 1999 18:36:33 -0400 Message-ID: <2803.926980593@foxharp.boston.ma.us> Sender: pgf@foxharp.boston.ma.us [ dropping lists to which i'm not subscribed, and people that i don't know, from the recipient list. -pgf ] jeff -- > 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. i'm not sure what position you're referring to. the position that one "owns" one's domain name in a property sense, i guess? i didn't posit that initially -- but it was the only response i got to my query as to the possible eventual fate of my current personal .us subdomain. > 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.... oops. excuse me if i (ab)used an overloaded term. i meant "squatter's rights" in the traditional real-estate sense, where one gains ownership through continued use and occupancy, not "squatting" in the profiteering sense in which the term is used in the world of domainname disputes. paul =--------------------- paul fox, pgf@foxharp.boston.ma.us (arlington, ma, where it's 62.8 degrees) . Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix2.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id RAA18781; Mon, 17 May 1999 17:35:18 -0500 (CDT) Received: from dal-tx49-14.ix.netcom.com(198.211.45.142) by dfw-ix2.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma018714; Mon May 17 17:34:30 1999 Message-ID: <37402C4B.A95DA43C@ix.netcom.com> Date: Mon, 17 May 1999 15:48:45 +0100 From: Jeff Williams Organization: INEG. Inc. X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.08 [en] (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: pgf-vx800@foxharp.boston.ma.us CC: us-list@ntiant1.ntia.doc.gov Subject: Re: grandfathering of .us domains? References: <31225.926979443@foxharp.boston.ma.us> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Paul and all, pgf-usdom@foxharp.boston.ma.us wrote: > [ dropping lists to which i'm not subscribed, and people that i don't > know, from the recipient list. -pgf ] > > jeff -- > > > 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. > i'm not sure what position you're referring to. the position that one > "owns" one's domain name in a property sense, i guess? Yes. > i didn't posit > that initially -- but it was the only response i got to my query as to > the possible eventual fate of my current personal .us subdomain. I understood that. >;) > > > > 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.... > oops. excuse me if i (ab)used an overloaded term. i meant > "squatter's rights" in the traditional real-estate sense, where one > gains ownership through continued use and occupancy, not "squatting" > in the profiteering sense in which the term is used in the world of > domainname disputes. This is what WIPO means as well, to an extent. WIPO's most fervent concern is with TM issues that deal with DN's. Do you have "Foxharp" filed or is it currently a TM that you hold? If not, that WIPO will have a concern here with your DN. > > > paul > =--------------------- > paul fox, pgf@foxharp.boston.ma.us (arlington, ma, where it's 63.1 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 smap@localhost) by dfw-ix16.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id TAA12561; Mon, 17 May 1999 19:33:48 -0500 (CDT) Received: from dal-tx1-06.ix.netcom.com(207.94.120.70) by dfw-ix16.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma012518; Mon May 17 19:33:35 1999 Message-ID: <37404830.6A751E24@ix.netcom.com> Date: Mon, 17 May 1999 17:47:48 +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 , 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> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Brett and all, Brett Glass wrote: > At 04:02 PM 5/17/99 +0100, Jeff Williams wrote: > > > FIrst come first serve, should remain the rule as it applies to Domain Names. > > First come in what venue? The DNS venue. Or the legacy DNS venue. Your choice. > 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. 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 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... 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! > > > 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. > 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. 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? And, leaves in question the subject of this thread of that of whether existing commercial Domain Names commercial or noncommercial under the .US ccTLD will need or should seek registering a TM in order for them to continue to retain their Domain Name without the concern of a serious legal challenge from another commercial party, hence protracting a potential "Reverse-domain-name-hijack". > (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? 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. > > > >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? 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. > 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? Likely yes this is true. But TM law, provides for that currently. However DN policy is a bit fuzzy here if you go outside the box of "First come First serve". > > > 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. 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. Has that been done thus far with respect to WIPO and ICANN? Most would say no. I would like to see the NTIA insist on this to be done, however thus far it has not. And I also suspect that with respect to the .US ccTLD and any or all of the current DN's that are currently registered within that name space, it will not be applied either. Food for thought perhaps? You be the judge. > > > --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 .