Every domain name has a public interest aspect, just like every trademark does
Try that again. Every registered (in some jurisdiction) mark is created through a process create by the public, but not ever string, registered by a private party with a private party, in an arbitrary location in some arbitrary namespace, compels a public interest. This is equivalent to asserting that a roulette wheel selecting 63 or fewer letters at random from the letters-digits-hyphen set, and inserting each sequence in some manner in some form of temporary store (we used to use HOSTFILES, and we may yet retire DNS) is somehow, rises to a public interest. You may want to add some useful qualifiers to "every". It isn't very long ago that registration practices, not mere registrations, were determined to be contrary to Consensus Policy, and costs imposed that resulted in registrars being de-accredited and their interest claim in domains transferred to third parties without compensation.
but admittedly, some domains have almost no public interest concern while others are overwhelmingly of a public interest.
Progress. At least we agree the public interest is not uniformly distributed across all possible sequences of length greater than three and less than sixty three generated over letters, digits and hyphen (or more for those wanting more math joy). The next step is to address the means of improving, if necessary, the _contractual_ means of curing the alleged defect in transfer rules. There is a real point to this. Whatever NA-DISCUS is, it isn't "lets pretend", it is the only vehicle common to a regional element of a ByLaws entity of a 501(c)(3) which is empowered by those ByLaws to offer limited advice to the Board of the 501(c)(3). Appealing to the law of the horse or the criminal code of X does not illuminate. Please try and make a case that some random punter complaining that he lost his undisclosed secret magic bean -- or whatever his belief in his awesome powers of string speculation are, rises to the level of action by this body, and not for the reason I've offered earlier, that the transfer process may not yet be as intended. Eric Brunner-Williams Eugene, Oregon
This thread has nothing to do with the original issue. The issue is that domain hijacking exists in the namespace and there are no REAL methods to be able to promptly resolve the situation. Conversely, if someone feels that their trademark is being used by someone who rightfully registers a name within this namespace, there seems to be prompt attention to that matter, with judgement to those with the fattest wallet. Honestly, this is an issue which should have come to light a long time ago. It is a true weakness of the system. In other words, I move that we either formally address this through the chair, et al., or move along and find another topic. My opinion is that it is a worthwhile topic, sans the mind-numbing banter. RJ Glass A@L
________________________________ From: Eric Brunner-Williams <ebw@abenaki.wabanaki.net> To: Seth M Reiss <seth.reiss@lex-ip.com> Cc: na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org Sent: Monday, June 17, 2013 9:55 PM Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Domain hijacking story
Every domain name has a public interest aspect, just like every trademark does
Try that again. Every registered (in some jurisdiction) mark is created through a process create by the public, but not ever string, registered by a private party with a private party, in an arbitrary location in some arbitrary namespace, compels a public interest.
This is equivalent to asserting that a roulette wheel selecting 63 or fewer letters at random from the letters-digits-hyphen set, and inserting each sequence in some manner in some form of temporary store (we used to use HOSTFILES, and we may yet retire DNS) is somehow, rises to a public interest.
You may want to add some useful qualifiers to "every".
It isn't very long ago that registration practices, not mere registrations, were determined to be contrary to Consensus Policy, and costs imposed that resulted in registrars being de-accredited and their interest claim in domains transferred to third parties without compensation.
but admittedly, some domains have almost no public interest concern while others are overwhelmingly of a public interest.
Progress. At least we agree the public interest is not uniformly distributed across all possible sequences of length greater than three and less than sixty three generated over letters, digits and hyphen (or more for those wanting more math joy).
The next step is to address the means of improving, if necessary, the _contractual_ means of curing the alleged defect in transfer rules.
There is a real point to this. Whatever NA-DISCUS is, it isn't "lets pretend", it is the only vehicle common to a regional element of a ByLaws entity of a 501(c)(3) which is empowered by those ByLaws to offer limited advice to the Board of the 501(c)(3).
Appealing to the law of the horse or the criminal code of X does not illuminate.
Please try and make a case that some random punter complaining that he lost his undisclosed secret magic bean -- or whatever his belief in his awesome powers of string speculation are, rises to the level of action by this body, and not for the reason I've offered earlier, that the transfer process may not yet be as intended.
Eric Brunner-Williams Eugene, Oregon ------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss
Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org/ ------
Your request of the Chair is noted. I will add this as a discussion item on our next call and let the region decide how to move forward. -----Original Message----- From: na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of RJ Glass Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2013 8:17 PM To: ebw@abenaki.wabanaki.net; Seth M Reiss Cc: na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Domain hijacking story This thread has nothing to do with the original issue. The issue is that domain hijacking exists in the namespace and there are no REAL methods to be able to promptly resolve the situation. Conversely, if someone feels that their trademark is being used by someone who rightfully registers a name within this namespace, there seems to be prompt attention to that matter, with judgement to those with the fattest wallet. Honestly, this is an issue which should have come to light a long time ago. It is a true weakness of the system. In other words, I move that we either formally address this through the chair, et al., or move along and find another topic. My opinion is that it is a worthwhile topic, sans the mind-numbing banter. RJ Glass A@L
________________________________ From: Eric Brunner-Williams <ebw@abenaki.wabanaki.net> To: Seth M Reiss <seth.reiss@lex-ip.com> Cc: na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org Sent: Monday, June 17, 2013 9:55 PM Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Domain hijacking story
Every domain name has a public interest aspect, just like every trademark does
Try that again. Every registered (in some jurisdiction) mark is created through a process create by the public, but not ever string, registered by a private party with a private party, in an arbitrary location in some arbitrary namespace, compels a public interest.
This is equivalent to asserting that a roulette wheel selecting 63 or fewer letters at random from the letters-digits-hyphen set, and inserting each sequence in some manner in some form of temporary store (we used to use HOSTFILES, and we may yet retire DNS) is somehow, rises to a public interest.
You may want to add some useful qualifiers to "every".
It isn't very long ago that registration practices, not mere registrations, were determined to be contrary to Consensus Policy, and costs imposed that resulted in registrars being de-accredited and their interest claim in domains transferred to third parties without compensation.
but admittedly, some domains have almost no public interest concern while others are overwhelmingly of a public interest.
Progress. At least we agree the public interest is not uniformly distributed across all possible sequences of length greater than three and less than sixty three generated over letters, digits and hyphen (or more for those wanting more math joy).
The next step is to address the means of improving, if necessary, the _contractual_ means of curing the alleged defect in transfer rules.
There is a real point to this. Whatever NA-DISCUS is, it isn't "lets pretend", it is the only vehicle common to a regional element of a ByLaws entity of a 501(c)(3) which is empowered by those ByLaws to offer limited advice to the Board of the 501(c)(3).
Appealing to the law of the horse or the criminal code of X does not illuminate.
Please try and make a case that some random punter complaining that he lost his undisclosed secret magic bean -- or whatever his belief in his awesome powers of string speculation are, rises to the level of action by this body, and not for the reason I've offered earlier, that the transfer process may not yet be as intended.
Eric Brunner-Williams Eugene, Oregon ------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss
Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org/ ------
------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------
May I suggest that people interested in this issue take a look at the "Final Report on the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy - Part B Policy Development Process". This PDP was undertaken specifically to look at the issue of domain hijacking, and resulted in a number of substantive recommendations to facilitate the urgent return of hijacked domains. The policy was adopted by the ICANN Board on 25 Aug 2011 and was implemented on 01 June 2012. The actual policy implementation can be found at http://www.icann.org/en/resources/registrars/transfers/policy-01jun12.htm. Of particular note are the sections on the Transfer Emergency Action Contact (TEAC) and the requirement for a registry to undo the transfer under certain conditions, and the requirement for the Registrar of Record to notify the registrant of the impending transfer. Also perhaps of interest is the original SSAC report on hijackings - http://archive.icann.org/en/announcements/hijacking-report-12jul05.pdf. Alan At 18/06/2013 09:42 PM, Garth Bruen wrote:
Your request of the Chair is noted. I will add this as a discussion item on our next call and let the region decide how to move forward.
Just chiming in to support RJ Glass's last comments regarding this weakness or defect in the system. (And to thank the Chair for putting it into upcoming agenda!). I really appreciate how RJ Glass frames it. I'm rarely available during conference call times, but eager to hear what options emerge, or what people here think are worthwhile actions or strategies on this matter. MM On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 8:16 PM, RJ Glass <jipshida2@yahoo.com> wrote:
This thread has nothing to do with the original issue.
The issue is that domain hijacking exists in the namespace and there are no REAL methods to be able to promptly resolve the situation. Conversely, if someone feels that their trademark is being used by someone who rightfully registers a name within this namespace, there seems to be prompt attention to that matter, with judgement to those with the fattest wallet.
Honestly, this is an issue which should have come to light a long time ago. It is a true weakness of the system.
In other words, I move that we either formally address this through the chair, et al., or move along and find another topic.
My opinion is that it is a worthwhile topic, sans the mind-numbing banter.
RJ Glass A@L
participants (5)
-
Alan Greenberg -
Eric Brunner-Williams -
Garth Bruen -
Michael Maranda -
RJ Glass