Re: brain cycles of the WG

[Jim Reid <jim@rfc1035.com>]

On Dec 6, 2006, at 21:04, Florian Weimer wrote:

> The main reason, IMHO, is that a potential successor (which has to be
> decoupled from the current DNS to offset itself from its security
> issues) would hardly inherent most of the legal privileges DNS enjoys.

Perhaps. Though I'm not sure DNS has any legal privileges. DNSv2  
would surely be doomed by all the layer-9 goop it would attract.  
Governments, regulators, lawyers, industry groups and all sorts of  
non-technical organisations would have a feeding frenzy about who got  
to control the root, where the servers get placed, who gets runs them  
and how they are policed, etc, etc.

> Nobody except a TLD registry operator can get away with such
> large-scale trademark violations.  This card blanche extends down the
> registrar/reseller pipeline, and it's very hard to compete with  
> *that*.

I disagree with your premise but accept the conclusion. Registrars,  
resellers and the intellectual property folks would scream very  
loudly if there was a viable replacement to the current DNS.

BTW, TLD registry operators don't "get away with trademark  
violations". They're generally innocent third parties. Validating  
trademarks is hard and expensive. [I've just spent months looking at  
this issue with IPR professionals for a new TLD operator.] Even if an  
impostor registers a trade mark, there are a variety of methods for  
the true holder to gain control of the domain. This is now way off  
topic for this list, so no followups on UDRP and suchlike to  
namedroppers, please...


--
to unsubscribe send a message to namedroppers-request@ops.ietf.org with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/namedroppers/>