Re: [ifwp] Re: Domain name regulation

["Martin B. Schwimmer" <martys@interport.net>]

At 06:28 PM 8/18/98 +0000, you wrote:
>> OK, as long as we're trading anecdotes - a web site completely takes 
>> the code of the Web site of a furniture company, meta-tags and all, so 
>> the abstract in the search engine results actually says "welcome 
>> to [furniture company]" The infringer competes with the furniture 
>> company.  A Whois search of web site reveals for the owner a 
>> fictitious name, a fictitous address, and the administrative 
>> contact telephone number - 999-999-9999, billing contact 
>> number - 999-999-9999. This is bad not only for the furniture 
>> company whose code was stolen but for the customers who would 
>> order furniture from this web site.  
>
>You're talking apples and oranges.  This is copyright infringement and
unfair 
>business practices.  I don't see how domain name dispute policies could 
>possibly have an effect on this type of improper conduct.


The Spanish anecdote was posted in support of the following proposition:

"When you talk about treating domain names like
trademarks and imposing regulatory review processes on the grant of a
domain via
some international bureaucracy, this is a taste of what's in store."

Regulatory review processes have purposes other than resolving disputes.
In this case, some form of identity checking would aid in a copyright owner
neforcing its rights, and in consumers seeking redress from thier rights,
should they have some problem with the vendor.




>>  
>> My point is that proving who you are is not, in and of itself, a bad 
>> thing. 
>>  It cuts down on name speculation and it cuts down on 
>> fly-by-night operations (which can give the Net a bad name).
>
>Proving who you are in what way?


Providing a verifiable identity and means of contact. 

   
>>  
>> For-profit registries will not voluntary impose on themselves 
>> rigorous standards for identity checking.  
>
>I don't see how "for profit" or "non profit" would make a difference here.


A for-profit registry is not motivated to increase the cost of processing
an application, and is not motivated to adopt policies which may reduce the
number of registrants.  A not-for-profit agency which was processing
registrations on a per-registration fee basis would be in the same
situation.  I am not arguing that there shouldn't be for-profit registries.
 I am suggesting that (1) identity verification is important for there to
be confidence in the Net and (2) for-profit registries are unlikely to
impose these obligations on themselves (unless they are struck by
"enlightened self-interest."




>>  
>> It isn't good that the Spanish company needed to wait two weeks to 
>> obtain a monopoly on the use of its preferred domain name.  It's hard 
>> to get things done in a hurry in August in Europe (I hear that Italy 
>> is the worst).  I am not sorry that it had to submit a notarized copy 
>> of its corporate documents (I agree that it sounds silly - complain to 
>> the NIC).  However, perhaps the poster can tell us if there is much of 
>> a name speculation industry in Spain for .es names.  
>
>What would have happened if this registrant hadn't been a corporation, and 
>instead had been an individual who wanted to use it for parody or political 
>speech?

See Mr. Stefitz' second post to this thread.  I don't think you will find
many people on these lists who support the Spanish practice of not allowing
individuals to own domain names.  That is pretty offensive.

As far as identity confirmation is concerned, if the applicant is an
individual, then show a drivers license or some other form of ID.  That is
not much of burden.

And if the individual needs to make anonymous speech, then they can be
"anonymous@whatever.com"

Or there could be a non-commercial TLD which had lesser standards of
identiy-confirmation (but the consumer would be on notice that this
particular TLD was a non-commercial TLD).

Incidentally, I am not suggesting documenting a "prior entitlement" to the
DN.  I am talking about verifiable identity.

P.S. I have now read Mr. Ambler's post regarding a valid mailing address,
and it sounds as good to me. 



>











>
>Mikki Barry               A-TCPIP/Domain Name Rights Coalition
>President                                  www.domain-name.org
>
>