joey@geac.com (Joey DeWiele) (02/17/90)
Here's a couple of questions for all the "OSI Registration" gurus
out there, that is, if there is such a thing.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here in Canada, the Canadian Standards Association has assumed
responsibility for acting as the "National Registration Authority for OSI"
for Canada. The CSA hopes to act as a registration authority as specified
in ISO 4th DP 9834-1.
The first draft of the Canadian registraion authority procedures allows
for the registration of both numeric and alphanumeric values for
organization names.
I find the requirements for registration of alphanumeric strings to be
fairly confusing.
First of all, it seems to me that organizations already have legal title
to their names, and *reregistration* for the purpose of OSI seems
unnecessary. There seems to be this idea, held by a numer of people, that
registration of organization names is a requirement to have your organization
listed in the OSI Directory. Not only do I find this idea horrifying from
the perspective of a prospective vendor of a Directory product, but it seems
totally divorced from the reality of the business and legal environment.
It seems to me that if organization A wants to have a Directory listing
with, say, Western Union, that the last thing that Western Union will want
is to require organization A to *reregister* their name with some registration
authority, an authority which in all likelyhood will not have any legal status
with respect to authorizing use of names. Western Union must already
be prepared to deal with issues such as legal entitlement to use string names
in a Directory, issues which some government registration authority will most
likely, in my opinion, only cloud.
Furthermore, it strikes me that any registration authority run by the
government could be subject to lawsuits if they inadvertently allow
the registration of a string name by an organization not entitled to use it.
Especially if that *registered name* gets publicized in a public Directory
service run by a company like Western Union (or for that matter used as part
of an O/R address).
It seems that the only way that a government organization could run a string
name registration authority is if it maintains that registration of the
name *has no legal consequences whatsoever*, and is in otherwords meaningless.
I have heard some arguments that SC18 in Canada has put forward requirements
for government registration of string names. Although I am ignorant of name
registration requirements of MHS users and service providers, it would seem
to me that the same arguments would apply.
All in all, I have come to the conclusion that government registration of
string names is a dumb idea.
However, I am willing to have my ignorance of this issue demonstrated by
"Registration Authority" experts from all over the world, who will submit
clear and convincing arguments for string name registration that will leave
me speechless in the face of sudden realization of the sound and pressing
requirements for this sort of thing.
As to assignment of numeric values, the second component of the Canadian
registration procedures for OSI, there seems to be an obvious requirement
for organizations to be able to acquire values of type OBJECT IDENTIFIER
to use for the purposes commonly associated with object identifiers, such
as the identification of TYPES of information objects, such as particular
Directory OBJECT CLASSES and ATTRIBUTES defined for Directory applications,
and for numerous other uses.
The Canadian procedures do not identify how the numeric values assigned
fit into the object identifier tree. My question of you registration
gurus from other countries is this:
Is it desirable for a national registration authority to subdivide the name
space underneath the "member-body" arc defined in 9834 (or more properly 8824),
as shown below:
ISO(1)
|
|
member-body(2)
|
|
+---- Canada(xxx defined in 3166)--+
| | |
| | |
organizations(0) standards(1) other stuff(2)
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Notes:
- by standards I mean Canadian standards, which in most cases involving
OSI are Canadian approved ISO standards;
- you need a dozen standards to figure this all out, I don't know
Canada's 3166 code, and by other stuff I mean things like Application
Contexts, AE-titles, and "other-stuff" I don't know about, for which
I have no idea what registration implications there are.
or can the space below Canada be a "grab-bag" mix of different things?
Anyway, I could become convinced that while our company would like to "buy"
a value of type "OBJECT IDENTIFIER", we don't want to be forced to
"reregister" our name!
Signed,
Confused By Registration
(aka Joey)
P.S.
- do these string values get used as object descriptors for the
registered OIDs?hal@slovax.WA.COM (hal) (02/21/90)
To add to Joey DeWiele's confusion about string-name registration of corporate names, ... (I happen to be a member of the Oregon State Bar, but the following applies to most other US states, and quite possibly Canadian provinces, Australian states, ...) "Registration" of a corporate name is done at the state government level. A given corporation (your example of Western Union) that does business in many/all states, will register that name in each state. If it only does business in, say Oregon (example is one I incorporated, Hippo Hardware and Trading Co.), it is only registered in that one state. Another group of individuals may legally use that name for a totally unrelated business in another state, regardless of whether the subject matter of the business is similar or not. If we look to registering corporate names on a basis larger than the state level (as we obviously mean to do, given the international flavo[u]r of the c.p.iso community), we could well run into conflicting uses of these string-names. What I'm suggesting here is that we cannot expect the local laws to iron this one out. My backround in international law leads me to believe that I'd rather solve this one as a software engineer than as a lawyer -- better chance of success. Unfortunately, I don't have a viable alternative (yet). Any ideas? Hal Miller hal@slovax.wa.com
mckee@COMMUNITY-CHEST.MITRE.ORG (H. Craig McKee) (02/23/90)
>From: elroy.jpl.nasa....lethe!geac!joey@decwrl. (Joey DeWiele) >Organization: Geac Computer Corporation >Subject: OSI Registration. > .... >First of all, it seems to me that organizations already have legal title >to their names, and *reregistration* for the purpose of OSI seems >unnecessary. .... > .... >It seems that the only way that a government organization could run a string >name registration authority is if it maintains that registration of the >name *has no legal consequences whatsoever*, and is in otherwords meaningless. Perhaps I'm naive but it all seems quite innocent to me. I agree you own the name Geac Computer Corporation. You are not obligated to use Western Union or (Bell) Yellow Pages or the library or credit cards or OSI networks/services; but if you do use them, you have to "register" with the appropriate authority. Is it your concern that the Government, rather than some other entity, will be the appropriate authority for OSI Registration? Regards - Craig
Stef@nrtc.northrop.com (Einar Stefferud) (02/27/90)
Your observations about national and State (or even lower) "standing" for a given organization to use a given name are right on the mark. The US ANSI Procedures that have been adopted for OSI Organizational Name Registration account for this by preregistering each State, the District of Columbia, and all the (6-7) Outlying Areas (e.g., Guam, Puerto Rica, etc) to become (sub)registration authorities for organizations that only have standing in their jurisdictions. The next step in the problem then is to alert the states that they have an obligation to OSI to establish (sub)registries for their organizations (and citizens). Then, the rules are simple. You apply for a name, which is published on a "challenge" list. if anyone challenges, the registration process stops and waits for the challenger/applicant pair to resolve the challenge, without any help from ANSI or the state (sub)registries. If after the challenge period closes, someone decides to challenge a registered name, it is their privilege, but the name remains registered until it is agreed that the challenger shall have the right to force de-registration, or turnover of the registration to the challenger. Again, this action is all taken in the normal legal context of intellectual property rights, which includes litigation in the courts if the challenger and the defendant so wish. Now then, all this seems quite rational, until we notice that some OSI standards, like X.400 ORAddress Attribute Values require a single flat national namespace. (e.g., PRMD and ADMD Names) More on this in the next episode...\Stef
karl@asylum.sf.ca.us (Karl Auerbach) (02/28/90)
This registration business reminds me of the fellow who notices promising products in the USA. He then goes and registers the trademark of those products wherever he can in other countries. He then waits for the product to try to go international. Then he sells the rights to the name to the product-maker. It's legal. And it's always (almost always, anyway) cheaper to buy then litigate. It seems that ASNI/OSI are really about to step into it if they don't do an *automatic* registration of existing trademarks, service marks, corporate names, DBAs, etc. I think this need be done only once, when the registration system is established. This will maintain the status quo ante. (I don't get to use that legal latin much in this business!) I don't understand what it means to talk about this kind of registration as being subject to "the normal legal context of intellectual property rights". If the name isn't registered according to the existing procedures of law (of which the ANSI/OSI system is not a part) then I don't see why the legal system even ought to take cognizance. Perhaps ANSI/OSI ought to require proof of legal registration *before* accepting a name. I can't open a bank account without proof of identity (personal or corporate), so why should I be able to register a name without the same level of proof? --karl--
Stef@NRTC.NORTHROP.COM (Einar Stefferud) (02/28/90)
Karl, et al ...
The ANSI procedures do accept all the legal standing of other anme
protecting mechanisms by simply saying that the assertion of the
applicant that they have ther right-to-use an applied-for name is
accepted, but that if it is cahllenged, then the applicant bears the
burden of proff and that NASI will simply stop action on the application
until the challenge is resolved. ANSI simply says that it is not in the
business of establishing right to use in general, but is in the business
of assuring that OSI Organizational names are always unique, if
registered with ANSI.
If someone in the net uses a name not registered with ANSI, it is not
going to be ANSI's job to police and punish the offender. Same goes for
applicants that attempt to use otehr peoples' names. ANSI leaves all
that to the "normal legal system" and takes not part in the legal
actions.
But, I think that if we are going to debate the ANSI procedures in
detail here, everyone should get a copy first so we can discuss the
details with knowledge aforethought.
To get the ANSI procedures, FON 212-642-4932 or FAX 212-302-1286 or
TLX 42 42 96 ANSI UI
I am not about to type the document into this discussion...\Stef