Re: "First come first served" RULES!

[Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com>]

On Fri, Nov 14, 1997 at 07:39:33AM +0000, Bob Allisat wrote:
> Kent wrote:
> > You were mistaken.  I "own" songbird.com; I have a registered
> > trademark for "songbird"; I like the name, I value the name, I use it
> > in business, and I want to protect it.  I also want to protect the
> > domain name.  Furthermore, I think it is transparently clear and
> > indisputable to anyone who thinks that domain names have value, and
> > that value intersects the realm of intellectual property law. 
> 
>  Kent's SONGBIRD.COM has blocked
>  scores of other more legitimate
>  claimants to the domain from "owning"
>  it. They are forced into all sorts 
>  of misnomers to describe their work
>  or businesses. And their names are
>  in many cases internationally registered,
>  Trade Marked and copyrighted.  And they
>  have in most cases been in business
>  for decades longer than Kent.

There are almost certainly no such other claimants.  Part of getting 
a trademark is doing a trademark search and verifying that your 
trademark does *not* conflict.  There are a few other companies 
using the name "songbird"; none of them are in the business I am in.

>   And yet
>  the lad gets to sit on that name simply
>  because he was there first. In essense
>  Kent in his actions has validated the
>  or embodied concept of "first come first
>  served". 

I agree that there is an element of first come first first served
involved -- it is *one* of the criteria for granting a trademark (but
it is of course modified by many other criteria.)

>  A concept that by extension has
>  been and must continue to be applied
>  equally well/poorly to Top Level Domains.

It is applied to SLDs -- with modifications, just like trademark. 
But just as FCFS is only one criteria for trademark, it can only be
one criteria for domain names.  TLDs are clearly a special case, 
though.  The ISO 3166 domains demonstrates that conclusively.

The real issue here is, and always has been, not FCFS, but control of
the root domain.  The root domain will always have to have special
rules. 

> 
>  The only rationalization to any of
>  Internic's claims and to IAHC/CORE's
>  recent activities is the same: "We were
>  there first". Except IAHC/CORE wasn't
>  and .ART and .WEB (not to mention .NET,
>  .COM, .ORG, .PER, .WTV, .FCN, .XXX,
>  .SEX, .ZOO, .ECT) "belong" to other
>  concerns. Precedents have been set long
>  ago. By Crispin and all those people
>  who were there a half a step ahead of
>  the rest of you. I own WTV.NET & FCN.NET.
>  Crispin and the others who were lucky
>  or clever own even more choice domain
>  names. The same rule must apply to Top
>  Level Domains.

Not at all.  First, in fact there are many conditions besides FCFS
that apply to domains in .net, .com, .org, .int, .mil, .gov, .us etc. 
And second, TLDs are always going to be governed by special rules, the
rules that apply to the root zone.  In fact, every zone is controlled
by special rules, and those rules are determined in a whole bunch of 
different ways.

So there is no obvious requirement of FCFS for the root zone.  In fact
there is no obvious requirement of FCFS for *any* zone.  RFC1591
describes the philosophy of delegation of SLDs as being a matter of
fairness -- "These designated authorities are trustees for the
delegated domain, and have a duty to serve the community.  The
designated manager is the trustee of the top-level domain for both the
nation, in the case of a country code, and the global Internet
community.  Concerns about "rights" and "ownership" of domains are
inappropriate.  It is appropriate to be concerned about
"responsibilities" and "service" to the community."

The MoU reiterates these principles: "the Internet Top Level Domain
(TLD) name space is a public resource and is subject to the public
trust".

You, Jay, and the others opponents of the IAHC espouse a position 
directly contrary -- your PRIMARY concern is about "ownership" and 
"rights" pertaining to TLDs.

-- 
Kent Crispin				"No reason to get excited",
kent@songbird.com			the thief he kindly spoke...
PGP fingerprint:   B1 8B 72 ED 55 21 5E 44  61 F4 58 0F 72 10 65 55
http://songbird.com/kent/pgp_key.html