<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
I am no doubt missing a lot of things from these debates, but...<br>
<br>
Source doc from the 14th sept addressed sld strings. Source doc from
20th june addressed TLD strings. Both were lumped together in this
discussion (I thought) although this discussion admittedly proceeded
largely on principled grounds. I suppose it could have gained in
relevance had we dwelled on the details of the justifications of the
implementation of both, <i>before</i> going on principled grounds,
if it must have gone there at all. But, to my/our defense, it's not
like the justifications for those positions (reserving strings) are
cleanly presented for debate. Even deep in the links. Justifications
are usually summed up by academic critics, from whose summary of
talking points and implicit politics can we then try to assess those
justifications and opine and/or carve out ideas for policy-making
....<br>
<br>
So ... Was under the impression that both were being discussed and
chose to address only TLDs.<br>
<br>
The logic is still the same though (even though my first sentence
about compromise and politics still applies). I understand that the
reserve list is already existing, so some bad policy choice was made
before (which makes me reflect on the 'value' of compromise here). I
guess no one will be surprised if I hold an ideologically-consequent
position on this very-related although different policy matter: <br>
<br>
If they apply for red-cross.africa, good for them. If they don't,
they have no use for it. If they do and merely park it (the reserve
list is meant to prevent that 'obligation'), they should be stripped
of it, just like any other cybersquatter, as per Tim's very
reasonable use test doctrine proposal, or existing misuse laws,
norms, and/or regs as others have suggested. They should not be
allowed to colonize yet to exist SLD string. <br>
<br>
To address and counter a few potential justification for a
reserve-policy :<br>
<br>
Yes, phishing may happen. Yes, parody and critique may befall this
or other great organization. Just like it could from any book
bearing the title "Red Cross", or just like it could in any other
piece of media, including any addressing compendium or system.<br>
<br>
In any case, the intention of preventing parody and critique, while
it may well be an underground justification for these kinds of
positions, is simply not defensible. As for preventing phishing
through a reserve list, this is not only overkill, it is overkill
that sets precedent for bad law and subsequent bad compromise.<br>
<br>
As for my point about compromise, I am not that wise and lazy yet: I
make it merely not to yell too much about turning the clocks on
settled bad policy, and because I know that extreme demands may be
counterproductive. I defer to you good people doing a wonderful job,
and i try to do so with reserve. But, as to my principled belief I
hold that the strange doctrine that trademarked or famous strings
must be protected in an addressing scheme was never supported by law
or facts relating to the public interest. It was a compromise that I
wish would not have been made but that might have been
understandable in the context of then-TLD usage and related
cybersquatting rush of the first come first serve era. I am a
businessman and i can see the point of having a rapid and cheap
mechanism for resolving numerous potential conflicts. What we needed
then and what we need now is a (mis)use-doctrine, including,
importantly, the obligation to use. Sadly the hard cases were solved
with wrong analogies and bad law was crafted and a misplaced sense
of entitlement or property on addressing strings prevailed.<br>
<br>
Now, as Nuno and others have noted, people use domain names much
more loosely now a days, and so those early veiling and hard-case
circumstances are mostly gone and I see no reason to extend this bad
policy. <br>
<br>
I am therefore tempted to conclude this late night ramble by a quote
from "<a
href="http://www.webscription.net/chapters/0743471598/0743471598___2.htm">Life
line</a>" that goes a little like this:<br>
<br>
"The temporary injunction is lifted, and Dr. Pinero must not be
molested in the pursuit of his business. Decision on the petition
for permanent injunction is reserved without prejudice pending the
accumulation of evidence. Before we leave this matter I wish to
comment on the theory implied by you, Mr. Weems, when you claimed
damage to your client. There has grown up in the minds of certain
groups in this country the notion that because a man or corporation
has made a profit out of the public for a number of years, the
government and the courts are charged with the duty of guaranteeing
such profit in the future, even in the face of changing
circumstances and contrary to public interest. This strange doctrine
is not supported by statute nor common law. Neither individuals nor
corporations have any right to come into court and ask that the
clock of history be stopped, or turned back."<br>
<br>
Nicolas<br>
<br>
On 10/5/2011 11:20 PM, McTim wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:CACAaNxirWFNYK-BYjQZ5n=_=Csp_SOMfzvOGrum5j+8reK+BVg@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Nicholas,
On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 3:04 AM, Nicolas Adam <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:nickolas.adam@gmail.com"><nickolas.adam@gmail.com></a> wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">I can appreciate the importance of politics and compromise here. But ...
Why don't Red Cross apply for it's god-forsaken string?
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
If you read the source doc, it's about 2nd level domain names which
they want to protect. so NOT dotredcross, but redcross.africa,
redcross.eco, redcross, nyc, etc, etc.
</pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>