[ncdnhc-discuss] Fwd: [nc-deletes] Minutes - Conference Call, November 15

[todd glassey]

Danny -- What you have here is a "restraint of trade" issue to deal with and
nothing less. And because of how the operators of the Internet have laid it
out, domains are protectable as IP's. So because of their currently having
this value, anytime I am restrained from access to MY property, I suffer.
Thus no Registrar may prohibit any enterprise/entity from access or
publication rights to its IP's - i.e. its domain names, as part of any
Termination or Transfer process. The RIR's and ICANN as a whole don't seem
to grok this yet, "but you don't get it both ways".

The 45 Day cooling off period immediately damages the individual entity
regarding their publication rights on their marques.  Remember that a DNS
provider (both on the registrar and registry sides) is a publication agent
for a set of services, and not the keeper or owner of the IP it publishes
when it acts as an agent for its customers, and as such, it is unreasonable
and unacceptable for any of us/you to be setting policy regarding preventing
anyone's access to their properties in violation of US law.

Look - simply - either a name is a tangible piece of IP that has value in
the commercial world and must be treated as such, or ALL Domain Names
are/must be prohibited from being considered protectable IP's in the sense
of trademarks...  Otherwise ANYTIME anyone prevents me from using that mark
(even for a few hours) they are restraining my use of my trade mark in a
public manner and contract or not, that is actionable since it violates any
number of property laws here in the US.

So which is it??? - Either IP's are protectable in which case NO ONE,
including ICANN and its policies, had better step in between me and my
marks, or we are going to Court and I will be seeking criminal conspiracy
charges against those that put the policy in place (Vint - you ever see that
Stallone Film "Driven" - well its the end of the first season, and Stallone
was right, we will know what we are made of herein, and now... after the
passing of the Patriot Act I expect to see John Ashcroft and Governor Rich
get ugly and kick some ass re: these Internet Issues and the lack of any
controls that the Internet's operators now are constrained by... which
further makes all of these WG's of much less influence if any at all.  -
what was the reprise from that closing song they used in Driven? - "It aint
easy, being on top of the world"...)

Bluntly its time to pay the piper for the Wire Services folks that decided
that they and their customers were above any of the US's commerce and
personal liberty laws.

In closing this I would like to wish all a good day!
Todd Glassey


----- Original Message -----
From: <DannyYounger at cs.com>
To: <apisan at servidor.unam.mx>; <ajp at glocom.ac.jp>
Cc: <discuss at icann-ncc.org>; <svensson at icannchannel.de>;
<roessler at does-not-exist.org>; <mress at essential.org>;
<james.love at cptech.org>
Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2002 1:00 AM
Subject: Re: [ncdnhc-discuss] Fwd: [nc-deletes] Minutes - Conference Call,
November 15


> Alejandro,
>
> The minutes of the November 15 teleconference of the Deletes Task Force
> indicate that with respect to Issue 1 (Uniform delete practice after
domain
> name expiry by registrars), "It was generally agreed that it would be
> desirable for non-renewed domains to be consistently deleted by registrars
> within the 45 day auto-renew grace period."

This is BS - It took me arguing with Verisign for months to get them to
delete names that I had originally registered with them and that I
intentionally let expire so that I could move them to GoDADDY - and becuase
of the arguments between GoDaddy and Verisign as to what was released I lost
money becuase of transfer events that expired while we were arguling... . I
had to get Stacey Rubino Verisign's IP Lawyer involved as well.  And to
facillitate the transfer they actually had to pay the domain's back billing
off with "funny money" so their system would release the names and that
bluntly is restraint of trade.

So Vint - someone (ICANN probably) owes me some $$$ for those domain
movements that the failing of the existing process cost me for. You can
check with GoDaddy and you will find that I tried to consolidate all of my
domains with them (about forty (40) domains currently), and that numerous of
your (ICANN's) registrars tried actively to stop me or just refused to
transfer my IP publications to the new registrar I had contracted with as
though they (the RIR's) owned the IP's themselves.


> Having read that comment, I tend to wonder if TF participants are aware of
> the fact that not all registries currently support an auto-renew grace
period
> -- "The .name Registry Operator does not support an Auto-Renew Grace
Period.
> Upon the expiration of the term of a domain name registration or SLD
E-mail
> address registration, the registration is cancelled unless its term has
been
> explicitly extended by the sponsoring registrar."
> http://www.icann.org/tlds/agreements/name/registry-agmt-appc-5-02jul01.htm

This also is BS. The rules MUST be the same for all TLD's

>
> This raises the question, is perhaps the .name approach a better way of
> attending to the issue?  I know that when it comes to matters such as my
own
> driver's license, there is no grace period whatsoever... and there is no
> "confusion"...

Your drivers license is public identity information. Your domain name is
identical to your "mailing address" and is not part of the public identity
"tree of data",  and the issue becomes one of whether you can trade mark a
mailing address whether its numeric or textual in nature...

> if I haven't renewed my license by the expiration date, my
> license to drive is instantly revoked.

No it is not revoked, it expires. Revoked licenses may not be renewed,
expired ones can be.

> The Department of Motor Vehicles
> sends out renewal notices sufficiently in advance of the expiration date
(by
> regular postal mail) and I ignore such mail at my own peril.

Not quite true. There is generally a 30 day envelope to address the
asynchonicity of the mails and the like, but these are virtually
instantaneous with the Internet so this may be something that we want to
consider. Same goes with auto registration.

>
> As I see it, the primary problem these days is that far too many
registrars
> rely almost exclusively on e-mail correspondence to deal with renewals,
and
> the community already is under siege from so much spam from both
registrars
> and re-sellers that it is very easy to overlook a genuine renewal notice
> (which then leads to all these concerns over inadvertent deletions).

True, but at a higher level this is mostly becuase Law Enfoercement has
falied to protect us from the spammers.

> Perhaps
> as a matter of prudent policy we should require all registrars to send
> renewal notices by regular mail... as they don't seem to have any problem
> sending deceptive renewal notices by regular mail (slamming), they equally
> shouldn't have any complaints sending genuine renewal notices in such a
> manner.

The Registars are only bound by the terms of the contract you signed with
them and their back-side agreemetns with their bretheren and ICANN itself.
If the contract said that you would only hear form the Registrar through
email then "that is as they say  pretty much that" .

>
> If we're going to have some type of uniform policy to minimize registrant
> confusion, why don't we begin by evaluating the merits of the .name
approach
> as compared to the approach utilized by .com/.net/.org/.info/.biz?  We
> shouldn't make the mistake of instantly assuming that the processes
utilized
> by these dominant registries are inherently superior to those introduced
by a
> recent newcomer.

Also quite true as is the reverse of this as well!

>
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss at icann-ncc.org
> http://www.icann-ncc.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss