Re: comments on Jim's and Jeff's addenda to the gTLD MOU

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Andi and all,

andi payn wrote:
> 
> >>> is Jim and/or Jeff, >> is Amadeu's comments, > is Jeff again
> (Sorry if this is a bit confusing; Amadeu's software doesn't seem to be
> adding all the brackets it should be.)
> 
> >>>   1       the financial barriers to CORE membership should be low
> >>
> >> This not a matter for gTLD-MoU, even not for CORE-MoU. The requirements
> weret in
> >> the application form. And they are low, Jim. But don't send 25 mails
> answering
> >> that point: we both would easily agree that they could be lower, and that
> they
> >> should be still lower.
> >
> >  If it is not a matter for the gTLD-MoU or CORE-MoU, than why is ti
> >part of
> >teh requirnment to become a registrar and in the MoU document?
> 
> Jeff, it's not in the gTLD-MoU; it's in the application form, which is a
> separate document which you only have to sign if you're applying to be a
> registrar.
> 
> >>>   2       CORE should begin operations with a large number of
> registrars,
> >>>           hundreds if at all possible
>  >>
> >> Yeah, everyody being forced to be registrar... Come on THE VAST MAJORITY
> OF
> >> NON-APPLICANTS will stay home NOT because the requirementsts are dilt to
> meet,
> >> but
> >> simplysinmply becaus they are interested in this business. Bm involved n
> the iet
> >> or not. Do you really believe that, if let's say Microsoft or General
> Motors do
> >> not become registrars is because they cna get a credit line????.
> 
> Amadeu: No, but I do believe that if more than 99% of the ISPs don't want to
> become registrars, in many cases, it's because they can't or don't want to
> get credit lines, or don't want to pay $10K.

  Yep!  And most likely most of them think it would be more approiate
that they get paid $10k to provide this additional service.
> 
> >>>   3       CORE should begin operations as soon as possible
> >>
> >> There we agree. But your move could only lead to stop current selection
> process
> >> and start everything form scratch is quite inconsistent with this goal,as
> far as
> >> I can see.
> >
> >  Maybe it isn't part of the "Goals" but it should be.  Possibly
> >stopping
> >the process is a good idea and starting all over again.
> 
> I think that someone could easily get a test system set up and running well
> within a month, and let CORE take it over and begin running it the way they
> want to once they're incorporated and ready to go. Once they're happy with
> it, which should be another month at most, they can start accepting
> registrarions.

  I agree.  But from the comments I have read here on this list from
POC members, they do not want to run it at all rather they would rather
contract that function out.  I find this a bit disturbing.
> 
> >>   4       CORE should be professionally managed
> >>
> >> This is exactly the kind of  provision which inclusion in a
> >> basic,onstitutional-like doc as the gTLD-MoU is essential. I'll ask form
> >> tomorrow that the Maastricht Treaty be reformed to provide that custom
> officers
> >> must be highly-qualified professionals speaking at least seven languages.
> >
> >  Your sarcasim does not strengthen your argument here a bit.  It only
> >points
> >to the fact that you and most members of POC/PAB have very little
> >intrest in
> >getting other points of view that have some relevance to the structure
> >problems that are glaring to nearly everybody whom has read the
> >gTLD-MoU.
> 
> I agree that CORE should be professionally managed, but I don't think that
> this belongs in the gTLD-MoU. If it belongs anywhere, it's in either the
> CORE-MoU or the CORE articles of incorporation, both of which were written
> by iPOC and can be modified by CORE only with POC's approval, I believe.

  I agree these provisions should be in the CORE-MoU.  
> 
> >>>   6       if at all possible, existing shared registry software should
> >>>           be used in CORE's operations
> >>
> >> "Existing shared registry"?? Now you sound funny. Are you against
> progress? Has
> >> the software industry reached that point of maturity where no improvement
> is
> >> needed, convenient, possible? This is eften known as the beginning of
> >> obsolescence.
> 
> The main point of starting with existing software is to get things rolling
> as soon as possible. Even if nothing out there is a perfect fit, it may be
> easier to modify existing software than to start from scratch. Hopefully,
> the software used by Nominet or another existing registry will be either
> usable or close enough to use as a starting point. The second reason to
> start with existing software is, of course, that it's presumably been proven
> through use--that is, you already know how reliable it is.

  I agree.
> 
> >>   8       CORE should be strongly encouraged to use public domain
> software
> >>
> >> Public domain db that large, powerful and reliable? Well, if they
> exist.... But
> >> again fitting this is a
> >> second order choice, after service quality.
> >
> >  I agree again here.  But it is possible to use public domain software
> >in many instances.  This is no exception.
> 
> Much of the software that drives the Internet is public domain, or at least
> GNU- or similarly-licensed free software. One of the advantages of public
> domain software is that you can freely modify it to suit your needs. Another
> is that there's often a large pool of people who've been working on it
> openly, publicly, and voluntarily for some time who are generally willing to
> fix bugs and add features much more quickly than with commercial software
> (and I say this as someone whose primary income comes from commercial
> software development).
> 
>  >>   10      a gTLD name server should put put on line as quickly as
> >>           possible, preferably by 15 October
> >>
> >> Perfect, before the selection period ends. Or still better, before you
> convince
> >> us to redo the whole thing. Any idea where could we locate this server?
> >
> >  Yea!  I would be happy to provide the server.  There is one problem
> >solved.
> 
> I was going to say that if this had been done differently from the
> beginning, there would be plenty of people volunteering time and equipment
> to make this happen. Fortunately, there still are some.

  Yes there are.

> 
> There's no reason you can't have a server on line with test data before you
> finish the selection process. As I pointed out before, this would be a good
> thing. CORE, once they got organized, could spend a month or so testing and
> tinkering with the system, and barring any serious problems or objections,
> they could begin registering names well before the end of the year.

  This should be no problem.
> 
> >>>   14      domain names are addresses
> >>
> >> Yes, and the millions of people who may think otherwise should be
> reeducated .
> >> Period. If everybody could agree that they are ONLY addresses we would
> not be
> >> discussing all this.
> 
> Who exactly thinks otherwise? There are people who think that domain names
> are, as well as being addresses, various other things (some of which are
> wildly wrong, such as the idea that domain names form a directory), but I
> think everyone accepts as a minimum that they are addresses.
> 
> Even if domain names are only addresses, by the way, that doesn't
> necessarily eliminate all trademark issues. If I try to use the name "514
> Hope St." (or whatever the name of Damon Wayans' new show is) for a line of
> action figures which happen to look like characters on the show, I don't
> think I can defend myself successfully by saying "They can't trademark that
> name; it's just an address." On the other hand, if I have an office building
> at 514 Hope St. in another city, say downtown LA, and I have a sign saying
> "514 Hope St." on my building, I could defend myself quite easily. The
> important point here is that trademark violations come from confusion or
> from intentional misleading (or, in the case of exceptional strong
> trademarks, from dilution), not just from name identity.
> 
> >>>   15      the rights of trademark holders should be recognized, but only
> >>>           in cases where there is a clear attempt by a domain name
> >>>           holder to pass himself off as a trademark holder
> >>
> >> I'd could devise more precise legal terms ;-) I notice you are not
> bothered
> >> about reverse hijacking, or other ways of pirating htat occur.
> 
> With all due respect, I think you've completely misread Jim's point. Reverse
> hijacking seems to be exactly what he's trying to stop here. If trademark
> holders can only prevail when there is a clear attempt by a domain name
> holder to pass himself off as a trademark holder, reverse hijacking becomes
> impossible.
> 
> I don't agree with Jim here any more than I agree with the MoU; I think he's
> gone too far to the exact opposite side. I think that trademark disputes
> based on domain names should be handled using the same principles as
> trademark disputes based on company names, product names, advertising
> slogans, vanity phone numbers, or anything else.
> 
> Of course there is no one set of standards used by every jurisdiction in the
> world, but there are some basic principles that are used in most
> jurisdictions (enough for WIPO to consider them international), and they are
> not the principles in use in the MoU (or, for that matter, in Jim's
> counterproposal).
> 
> If the use of a trademarked name by someone other than the trademark holder
> causes confusion, or is meant to mislead, or dilutes a "strong" trademark,
> it's a violation. There are exceptions for prior use by the non-holder, fair
> use and/or satirical intent by the non-holder, and misuse of the trademark
> by the trademark holder. If anyone finds these standards objectionable in
> some way, please explain to me how.
> 
> >  I do.  I think you should resign.  Or learn english better.
> 
> Jeff, as long as we can understand Amadeu (which I almost always can), his
> English is good enough... Besides, if we get into that issue too far, people
> are going to standard demanding bilingual English/French proceedings
> (following the model of many UN-related committees and organizations).

  Possibly so.  But the international language currently is English.
> 
> >> I translate my mail: I'm not saying that any of your proposals is
> nonsense. Most
> >> are not quite the contrary. I'm just pointing out that I CAN'T BELIEVE
> that the
> >> thousands of people you claim are wihing to enter the system but are
> prevented
> >> by the current content of gTLD-MoU would be much impressed by these
> amendments.
> >> And that many of them would simply read ridiculous in a MoU, no matter
> how sound
> >> they are.
> >>
> >> The road may be the right one. The examples are not. Making policy is
> more
> >> difficult than
> >> cirticizing somebody else's efforts. I encourage you to provide a better
> list
> 
> OK, Amadeu, did you read my proposals (the third set)? I think that what
> we've come up so far with would be enough to alleviate the fears of hundreds
> of people who were previously hesitant or unwilling to sign, and remember
> that at this stage we're only a few hours and three proposals into the first
> phase...
> 
> Also, keep in mind that what we're proposing are addenda that we'd tack onto
> the end of the MoU and sign. If you want me to instead write a proposed
> replacement gTLD-MoU, I could do that just as easily, but there doesn't seem
> much point to that. The point to compiling a list of addenda is to create a
> standardized amended MoU that nearly all of us with objections could sign,
> allowing us to join PAB and begin having a direct voice in the system.

Regards,
-- 
Jeffrey A. Williams
DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java Development Eng.
Information Eng. Group. IEG. INC. 
Phone :913-294-2375 (v-office)
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com