Re: "First come first served" RULES!

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

Kent and all,

Kent Crispin wrote:
> 
> On Fri, Nov 14, 1997 at 07:39:33AM +0000, Bob Allisat wrote:
> > Kent wrote:
- small snip -

> >   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".

  It reiterates these principals in words but not compleatly in fact,
and only partialy in statment *As you stated above).  Public resource
is definatly subject to the public Trust.  That Trust is bound by
law.  And spicificaly law dealing with property, public or private.
These laws are waht makes a democracy distinctive form other forms
of governace.
> 
> 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.

  Rights and responsibility must go hand in hand.  That was set forth
by our founding fathers, in the constitution and "The Bill of Rights".
both of these documents were to seek a balance, not weighted one
way or another.  This principal would also apply to Domain Names
from both a responsibility (Public Trust), and Intellectual property
and ownership rights (Private Right).  As long as one does not
unfairly infring on the other in keeping with our Bill of Rights,
and COnstatution as set forth in further clarification within our
Public and PRivate property rights, than neither is more important
than the other.
> 
> --
> 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

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

Wisdom:   "One who knows others is wise,
           one who knows himself is enlightened."
           Lao Tzu