On Wed, Mar 31, 1999 at 02:16:15AM -0800, Bill Lovell wrote:
[...]
The use of the terms "own", "property rights", and so on have always
been problematic in this context. The terms may have precise legal
definitions, but those precise legal definitions have not yet come
to terms with domain names. So even the lawyers on the list fall
back to their intuitive understanding of what the terms mean, and
though their intuition might be better trained, there is seldom any
evidence of that.
I have a registered trademark for "Songbird"; I have the domain names
"songbird.com" and "songbird.net"; and I do actual internet related
business under those names, just as you do with "Cerebalaw". That
gives us a certain standing in the law, which, for convenience,we
can call "ownership". But it is the legal standing that is
important, not what we call it.
[...]
> Would I lose cerebalaw? Not on your tintype. Any
> registrary entity that tried to give it to anyone else
> would rue the day. Why? Because that's MY trademark.
> If it ever happened, I wouldn't write any letter to any
> registrar such as you know who; I'd sue the bastards.
"Cerebalaw" is a very strong trademark, because it is a coined word,
and any use by another party would be hard to defend. "Songbird", on
the other hand, is not such a strong trademark -- it's a common word,
and has lots of connotations in other fields. I have recieved
several queries from entities that are interested in the domain name;
there was, for a while, a "songbird.co.uk" domain that advertised web
services; there is a legitimate "songbird.org" organization.
Songbird is a very tiny sole-proprietorship, with a couple dozen
customers, but it is in fact already an international business.
Outside the Internet, a business the size of songbird would most
likely not even be thinking about trademark issues, much less
international trademark issues.
> >Now, if you ever decided to delegate
> >fenello.cerebalaw.com to me, then I would
> >have certain exclusive property rights in
> >fenello.cerebalaw.com, and certain shared
> >property rights in cerebalaw.com (just like
> >.com has certain exclusive property rights
> >in .com, and certain shared property rights
> >in the ROOT).
>
> Rights of use, not ownership. Cerebalaw
> itself I own. (I started to write something about
> easements, and stopped myself just in time.
> Been there, done that, it don't work.)
Also, adverse possession, which seems to be the theory underlying
NSI's position.
[...]
> >I'd say that it is the "registries" role
> >to brand and market a TLD.
>
> Not in our lifetimes.
> >
> >For example, .per could represent PERSONAL,
> >PERFECT, PERSNICKITY, etc. Iperdome, however,
> >has branded .per(sm) as a service offering
> >Personal Domain Name services under the
> >.per TLD.
>
> Does it show up anywhere else than as a TLD -- um,
> as a code for routing packets parts over the web?
>
> Don't think you'd get a registration, but you might
> try.
.per does not appear as a registered mark in the USPTO online
database. I guess there is no penalty for using the "sm"
designation, as Jay does...
[...]
> Wanna see my gorgeous logo?
> http://cerebalaw.com
> (You'll get to listen to Pachelbel's Canon in D at
> the same time if you're not MIDI challenged.)
Yes -- the first thing I did was forget about cerebalaw, and go to
your brothers site. Now, there's something to remember! ;-)
[...]
> >And where does this public ownership of the
> >name space begin, and where does it end.
>
> It begins somewhere in a Galaxy far, far away,
> and it NEVER ends.
Yep.
> >Why are you singling out the SLD as the
> >component *you* can own, but TLDs are
> >part of the public trust.
>
> Because, as noted above, I don't own any
> of the space which cerebalaw.com occupies,
> but am only renting it. The space itself is still
> in the public trust. An SLD is by definition a
> part of a TLD, and I've already said that the
> TLD is in public trust; ergo . . . .
> >
> >What about those name spaces that will only
> >let people register in the 3LDs. Do they
> >have ZERO, ZIP, ZILCH, NADA rights to their
> >name because the SLD "owns" it all?
>
> No, nobody owns any of it except the public --
> by which is meant the international public.
> >
> >Frankly, this is what all the fighting is
> >about. ICANN, like the gTLD-MoU before it,
> >wants to own all levels of the name space,
> >INCLUDING cerebalaw.com!
>
> Well, we'll see about that, now won't we? :-)
I don't know whether Jay is simply out of touch with reality, with a
fixation on "ownership" of domain names that prevents him from
understanding any other point of view; or whether he deliberately
perpetrates a "Big Lie", as a paid consultant of NSI. But neither
ICANN or the gTLD-MoU have *ever* made any claim of "owning" the name
space. This is a complete fabrication on Jay's part.
In fact, the MoU was an intelligent, careful, and responsible
attempt to set up a public process for management of a public
resource. It tried very hard to balance all the competing
interests. (*) ICANN is trying very hard to do the same thing.
> Certain nations can control certain air spaces, or
> certain limited reaches of the sea within limits
> that are specified by international treaty, but
> no country owns even one atom of the air or
> the sea -- they belong to humanity, as does
> every speck of domain name space, from time
> immemorial until the Big Bang bounces back.
Yep.
================================================================
(*) The MoU failed because the competing interests refused to be
balanced, and caused the USG to get involved. This remains true with
ICANN -- ICANN will only succeed because the USG has sufficient power
to force a resolution. There *IS NO CONSENSUS* on this stuff --
there are genuinely irreconcilable points of view. It is clear that
the "public trust" model is by far the majority opinion, but the
dissent is loud and well financed.
Furthermore, there are really only two choices ahead -- make ICANN
work, or turn the management of domain names over to governments.
--
Kent Crispin "Do good, and you'll be
[EMAIL PROTECTED] lonesome." -- Mark Twain
