[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Competition; was Re: [Membership] ICANN: The Issue of Membership---

Greg Skinner a écrit:

> I am referring to the dispute policy.

That's not really what's under discussion, is it? We're not talking about
domain name challenges, that happen in a very few percentage of the cases.
The topic here, if I'm not mistaken, is the established freedom of
registration of domain names to all, and the choice by all of where they
will have them served.

> The *website* is not the *domain name*.  The *website* can be moved to
> another ISP.  The *intellectual property* that is on the website
> belongs to those who created it.

Moving intellectual content isn't practical. Many, maybe most, websites are
made by third paries for the client whose website it is. The website owner
doesn't know how to move the website from one server to another, whereas he
or she can easily do it when it's associated with a domain name, which is
what is moved. You know this. Why are you pretending it isn't so? To make a
point, you distort the truth? How can we have a serious discussion if you do

> The website owner is leasing from the ISP the resources necessary to
> provide the web site.

Yes, and should have the freedom of choosing who to lease from, and not be
constrained because it's too difficult or costly to move the website to
another ISP.

> There really is no such thing (in current technology) as "your own
> domain name" unless you are the registry. Your domain name is
> either part of the ISP's infrastructure (e.g. myname.myisp.tld)
> or whatever TLD you're registered in (myname.tld).  Unless you are
> controlling everything to the right of the leftmost dot, you are
> not in control of the domain name.

Yes I am. If I'm the admin contact for a domain name registered with
InterNIC, I can change the nameservers whenever I want. No approval of the
hosting server administartor is necessary, as is correct. Are you proposing
that the tech contact for domain names have more authority over them than
the person who's paying for them? You may wish that were the case, but I'm
happy to say you will never get it passed.

> My arguments point out a practical limitation on the technology, which
> is independent of free-market economics.  

There are limitations to the technology, but control over the service of
domain names fortunately isn't one of them. The person who registers the
name and who is listed with the registrar and registry as admin contact has
the control. As it should be. As it will remain. Unless the ISPs become a
monopolizing cartel powerful enough to dictate policy to the registries,
which I frankly can't see happening.

> In any event, since the only
> thing I suggested were interim recommendations for registrants until
> such a thing as a shared registry exists, is widely deployed and there
> is adequate policy in place to protect registrants, I don't see why
> you are insisting that I am somehow playing to the trademark
> interests.

There are no such thing as interim recommendations. When something is
adopted it's always inetrim until it's changed. Everything in this world is
transitory, but it is also effective until it is changed. The ruse of
temporariness is what has gotten us all into a fix with ICANN, believing
this Board was only temporary and couldn't make policy, just because it says
so in their "temporary" bylaws.

You are playing into the hands of the trademark when you suggest that domain
names be allocated according to someone's policy. Any policy in the
alloocation of domain names will favor one interest over another. Domain
name allocation must remain free, that is, open to anyone who can pay a
modest sum for them.