Subject: Proper use of domain names.

From: srodawa <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 Aug 1999 18:06:50 -0500 (EDT)

My apologies if this is off the subject for the list, but...

There is a non-profit organization which has had the domain name mi.org
since 1988.  They are about to have the domain pulled from them because
some commercial organization is claiming to hold MI as a trademark.

On the surface, this seems wrong for several reasons:

1. mi.org is not MI and by the intended meaning of "org" would seem to clearly
   not be a trademark infringement on a for-profit organization.

2. How can a commercial organization sieze a .org domain name?  Isn't .org
   for non-commercial use?  They should be placed in .com, right?

3. This organization has held the domain name for eleven years during which
   there has been no problem.

I'm becoming very troubled by the crass commercialism of the web when root
domain names such as .org no longer are used for their intended purposes.

As a small non-profit, this organization (basically an ISP for small
non-profit organizations) has empty pockets.  Any advice?

Ron Srodawa

| Ronald J. Srodawa               | Internet: [email-masked] |
| School of Engineering and CS    | Voice:    (248) 370-2247      |
| Oakland University              | FAX:      (248) 370-4625      |
| Rochester, Michigan  48309-4478 |                               |

---

From: "Donald E. Eastlake 3rd" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 04 Aug 1999 00:10:36 -0400

Policies in .com, .net, and .org were originally set by IANA
(www.iana.org), and not the IETF.  Later, the US Government fixed the
price but in effect granted Network Solutions, Inc. (NSI), the power
to impose broad policies/terms/conditions over those names.  NSI's
written policy of favoring registered trademark holders over other
domain name hoders has been a matter of public record for years.  This
organization should have long ago registered their trademark if they
didn't want their domain name to constantly be at risk.  For years now
they have been signing annual renewal forms with NSI which state that
they accept the NSI disupute resolution policy.  I don't think there
is much they can do now, its way too late.

Donald

From:  srodawa <[email-masked]>
Message-Id:  <[email-masked]>
To:  [email-masked]
Date:  Tue, 3 Aug 1999 18:06:50 -0500 (EDT)
Cc:  [email-masked] (Ron Srodawa)

---

From: "Donald E. Eastlake 3rd" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 04 Aug 1999 00:10:36 -0400

Donald

---

From: "Ole J. Jacobsen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 Aug 1999 21:46:40 -0700 (PDT)

Donald,

It's worse than that.

Try the following excercise:

Go to the NSI webpage and try a name to see if it is available:

(http://www.networksolutions.com/)

Oh, why don't we just try: "donaldeastlake.com" for fun.

The page returns, (vebatim, but reformatted to fit your screens):

" donaldeastlake.com is available. 

These Web Addresses are also available! Register your name in all 3
extensions (.com, .net, .org) to create a stronger Internet identity. Just
click the box next to each Web Address you want to register.
              
[ ]  donaldeastlake.net 
[ ]  donaldeastlake.org"

In other words, NSI is *actively* encouraging registrants to register
their names in .net and .org.

I'll let you draw your own conclusions.

Ole :-(

Ole J. Jacobsen 
Editor and Publisher
The Internet Protocol Journal
Tel: +1 408-527-8972
e-mail: [email-masked]
URL: http://www.cisco.com/ipj

VP for Chapters, The Internet Society.

---

From: "Ole J. Jacobsen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 Aug 1999 21:46:40 -0700 (PDT)

Donald,

It's worse than that.

              
[ ]  donaldeastlake.net 
[ ]  donaldeastlake.org"

Ole :-(

Ole J. Jacobsen 
Editor and Publisher

---

From: "John W. Noerenberg" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 4 Aug 1999 09:52:59 -0700

>I'll let you draw your own conclusions.

I don't condone what NSI is doing.  But there is some justification. 
I don't know when their web page began advocating this policy.  So I 
don't know if it is in reaction to the craze to seize names, or if it 
was instrumental in feeding the frenzy.  However, it is certainly 
true the "land rush" for Internet names has been on for a year or 
more.  From the standpoint of protecting one's corporate identity, 
NSI's recommendation is sensible (that it is profitable for NSI, 
notwithstanding).

john noerenberg
[email-masked]
   ----------------------------------------------------------------------
   The man that can most truly be accounted brave is he who best
   knows the meaning of what is sweet in life and what is terrible,
   and then goes out undeterred to meet what is to come.
   -- Pericles, "Funeral Oration", 479 B.C.
   ----------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: "John W. Noerenberg" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 4 Aug 1999 09:52:59 -0700

john noerenberg
[email-masked]

---

From: Jacob Palme <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 7 Aug 1999 20:05:04 +0200

>some commercial organization is claiming to hold MI as a trademark.

Something like 15 % of all web links go stale in a years time. This
means that a provider of web pages will have to regularly, several
times a year, check if his/her links are stale, or else the quality
of his pages will be reduced. It also means that people looking for
information on the web often will find a stale link instead of the
information they look for.

Why do links go stale? Either the resource provider has changed
its URL, or removed it. A change in URL may be forced upon the
resource provider, as in the case which started this discussion,
or be done voluntarily because the provider is reorganizing his
web pages. A change in URL may also be necessary for those providers
who do not have their own domains, and who are using domains
provided by their web hotel. It may also be necessary when
organizations disappear, or when groups or people move from
one organization to another.

The URN is meant to reduce this problem, but I am not sure how
well they will work.

Another way of reducing this problem might be if IETF or W3C
issued recommendations that URLs should not be changed. People
who change URLs often are not aware of the disruption they
cause. For example, if I left my employment at Stockholm
University, is it really necessary that all URLs beginning
with "http://www.dsv.su.se/~jpalme/" have to go stale?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jacob Palme <[email-masked]> (Stockholm University and KTH)
for more info see URL: http://www.dsv.su.se/~jpalme

---

From: Jacob Palme <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 7 Aug 1999 20:05:04 +0200

---

From: Lloyd Wood <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 8 Aug 1999 16:39:17 +0100 (BST)

> with "http://www.dsv.su.se/~jpalme/" have to go stale?

Not if Stockholm's webmasters are competent, understand the
necessity for implementing redirect directives to generate 302s, and
have the goodwill to do so. I'd like to think it's goodwill that's
lacking in most cases of non-relocation, but applying the Peter
Principle to webmastering suggests otherwise - and there's never much
interest in other people's content.

This is a social, rather than a technology, issue. Take it to the HTML
Writers Guild or similar; maybe they can get another grassroots
banner awareness ad campaign ('Don't break the web!') going or
something.

L.

Tying webcontent to shell account lifetime is an awful short-term
hack, too.

<[email-masked]>PGP<http://www.ee.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/L.Wood/>

---

From: Lloyd Wood <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 8 Aug 1999 16:39:17 +0100 (BST)

L.

---

From: [email-masked] (Claus Färber)
Date: 14 Aug 1999 14:37:00 +0200

Lloyd Wood <[email-masked]> schrieb/wrote:
> necessity for implementing redirect directives to generate 302s,

301s. The resources won't come back to that location, will they?

-- 
Claus Andre Faerber <http://www.faerber.muc.de>
PGP: ID=1024/527CADCD FP=12 20 49 F3 E1 04 9E 9E  25 56 69 A5 C6 A0 C9 DC

---

From: [email-masked] (Claus Färber)
Date: 14 Aug 1999 14:37:00 +0200