<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">I think you're conflating my comments
with another thread.<br>
<br>
I'm not suggesting a trip down the Public Interest rabbit hole.<br>
<br>
Rather, as an individual domain name holder, I'd simply like to
see<br>
individual domain name holders' have rights to their names under<br>
ICANN policy, defined in such a way as to be enforcible under<br>
relevant law. (Or change the laws...a bigger task.) At present,
the<br>
playing surface is nearly vertical - trademark holders and
organizations<br>
anchored at the top, individual domain name holders (barely
acknowledged) at<br>
the bottom. See my previous follow-up post for an expanded
discussion,<br>
in a separate thread.<br>
<br>
===<br>
<br>
I have no objection to a 'domain name is/is not' list. Although
I think<br>
that's orthogonal to my comments, it would be useful - if we can
agree<br>
on the list. <br>
<br>
Frankly, I think everyone involved (including this group) has<br>
gone overboard in overloading domain name semantics. They're just
a<br>
name for an (ip) address (or set of addresses) that <b>humans
find easier to</b><b><br>
</b><b>remember</b> and that <b>allow the address(es) for a
service to change</b> without <br>
invalidating the name. The latter is good for both automatons and
humans.<br>
<br>
People need to be able to <b>obtain names that they like</b>, and
<b>maintain control</b><b><br>
</b><b>of the name</b> once <b>assigned</b>.<br>
<br>
Everything else is unnecessary (but very human, and real)
distraction/complication.<br>
That includes 'human rights', 'freedom of expression', 'cultural
sensitivity', 'geographic<br>
names', 'trademarks', 'monetization of the DNS', and all the other
hot-button issues.<br>
<br>
Take a deep breath, step back and take a reality check.<br>
<br>
As the Saudi example and others that I've cited show, attempting
to regulate valid<br>
names runs into a morass of cultural issues that can't be
resolved. Attempts to do<br>
so will consume endless energy, and are ultimately doomed to
failure in the trans-<br>
national, world-wide, cross-cultural internet.<br>
<br>
I fall back to a simple axiom (with apologies to K&R): "<b>Be
tolerant in the names that</b><b><br>
</b><b>you accept, and as strict as you like in those that you
generate.</b> " If people pick names<br>
that offend you, don't use them/do business with them. Those
people will get the<br>
message; people who want you to use their services will take care
not to offend you. <br>
<br>
It's no different from picking a business name, or the name for a
child. If you call your<br>
hotel 'The Certain Deathtrap for Penguins', you're unlikely to
have Penguins for guests.<br>
If you call your child 'Mohamed the True Prophet' in Tehran, he
may have a short life;<br>
though the same name in San Francisco would offend some, but be
protected.<br>
<br>
Should trademark holders have priority in obtaining their
trademarks as names?<br>
Sure - <b>when individual domain name holders have priority in
obtaining their</b><br>
family names, pet's names, boat's names, etc... Oh, that's
unworkable? Well, so<br>
is trademark priority for most holders - 'yellow sled' is probably
a trademark of<br>
small business in multiple countries, but only one can be
yellowsled.transport.<br>
Fine for big business, international non-profits. But the little
guy? Nope.<br>
And if you think that's weird, from an e-mail received this
morning(1):<br>
<blockquote type="cite">© 2014 United Parcel Service of America,
Inc. UPS, the UPS brandmark, and <br>
<b>the color brown are trademarks</b> of United Parcel Service
of America, Inc. <br>
All rights reserved.</blockquote>
<br>
Finally, all this<b> focus on the domain name's overloaded
semantics is really </b><b>a tempest</b><b><br>
</b><b>in a teacup</b>. Much more significant is what <b>content
</b>is served by the system(s) behind the<br>
name. I'm much more concerned with a system that distributes
malware than whether it's<br>
named 'Jesus', 'Mohamed', or 'Charles'. Oddly enough, I'm a
strong supporter of Intellectual<br>
Property (including trademark) rights, which should be enforced
where they count - on<br>
<b>content</b>, not names. It doesn't matter if your website is
served by 'pinksquare.org'. However, <br>
if the content of the website solicits funds fraudulently (e.g. by
misrepresenting itself as<br>
collecting for the owner of the PinkSquare trademark), that <b>content
</b>is actionable. And yes,<br>
revoking ownership of the name may be a suitable remedy. But if
the website's content<br>
is not impersonating the PinkSquare organization, and if it has a
prominent disclaimer<br>
('this website is not associated with PinkSquare(tm)...'), there's
no reason to get excited.<br>
<br>
And the really good news is that <b>regulating content has
absolutely nothing to do with</b><b><br>
</b><b>ICANN</b>!<br>
<br>
However, this should be another thread...<br>
<br>
(1) US TM reg # appears to be <span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);
font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;
font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal;
letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: auto;
text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none;
white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px;
-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; display: inline !important;
float: none; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">2131693 for
trucks; see <a
href="http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4802:4te38m.8.26">http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4802:4te38m.8.26</a>
and others (for uniforms, caps, etc), available at <a
href="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">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</a><br>
</span>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">Timothe Litt
ACM Distinguished Engineer
--------------------------
This communication may not represent the ACM or my employer's views,
if any, on the matters discussed.
</pre>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">This communication may not represent my employer's views,
if any, on the matters discussed. </pre>
On 30-Dec-14 09:49, Nicolas Adam wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"><html><br>
<head><br>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"<br>
http-equiv="Content-Type"><br>
</head><br>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"><br>
It'd be probably more useful to have a definition of nice
things<br>
that a domain name is (that is, nice things that a domain name
ought<br>
to be, but that we conveniently confuse with nice things that
a<br>
domain name is in our definition) than to have a definition of
the<br>
PI (although this was very constructive and I support the work
on PI<br>
framing). This would be more workable than the latter also,
would<br>
probably have more tooth and would be more difficult to oppose
if<br>
well crafted (it's hard to muster a sustained opposition to
the<br>
apple pie for example).<br><br>
<br><br>
For instance, domain names are <br><br>
<ul><br>
<li><br><br>
</li><br>
<li>an alphanumeric string with meaning<br><br>
</li><br>
<li>endlessly creative, their meaning is non-rival
(you can always<br>
come up with another string that will mean the
same)</li><br>
<li>gateways by which Internet innovation reaches
us<br><br>
</li><br>
<li>levelers of the Internet ecosystem's field and
enablers of<br>
fair competition</li><br>
<li>our roadmap to the open internet they are
reachable and<br>
uncensorable</li><br>
<li><br><br>
</li><br>
</ul><br>
That kind of approach would be more rights-based. I don't know
if<br>
this is an interesting idea let alone a relevant one, but ...
I have<br>
my fingers connected directly with my brain with no filter
this<br>
morning so I'm throwing this out there. The definition points
above<br>
are absolutely lacking but they convey the idea.<br><br>
<br><br>
Nicolas<br><br>
<br><br>
<br><br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 29/12/2014 5:25 PM,
Timothe Litt<br>
wrote:<br><br>
</div><br>
<blockquote cite=<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:mid:54A1D4D6.1020805@acm.org">"mid:54A1D4D6.1020805@acm.org"</a>
type="cite"><br><br>
But one of these days it would be nice to change the
conversation<br>
to include how to create and protect the rights of
non-corporate<br>
domain name holders. </blockquote><br>
<br><br>
</body><br>
</html><br>
<br>
</body><br>
</html><br>
</html></blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>