Re: [ga] Domain names as observed [correction]

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Sotiris and all assembly members,

  I am writing you while in route on international business so I shall make this
response short.

  The URL references are only a few that are available regarding case
law and Private Property designation of a Domain Name.  If anyone
wishes to do some digging into the case law of the 9th circuit and the 11th
circuit court decisions starting in 1998 forward, as well as the DOJ's
excellent references regarding TM law modification for new classes
added by the USPTO in early 1999, one can easily determine that
the designation of a Domain Name and Private Property are practically
synonymous.  In addition, the GATT and NAFTA trade agreements
also outline this rather well.

  As you Sotiris, and others know there are those among this assembly
that are either misinformed, or purposefully politically supporting WIPO
and the ICANN BoD's positions on this matter.  They do so as they have
a political and/or a financial stake in doing so irregardless or the relevant
fact, case law precedent, and overall stakeholder desire.

Sotiris Sotiropoulos wrote:

> Jeff Williams wrote:
>
> > IP and trademark are not external property rights at all.
> > See: http://laws.lp.findlaw.com/9th/9856918.html as yet another example...
>
> Jeff, thanks for this.. it's relevance and interest were well timed.
> Interestingly, Judge O'Scannlain states the following in his opinion: "Other than
> requiring an applicant to make certain representations, Network Solutions
> does not make an independent determination about a registrant's right to use a
> particular domain name."
>
> This is not true.  Try registering a domain name including the words Olympic,
> Olympian, or Olympiad .whatever and see what Network Solutions or Register.com
> will tell you...
>
> Also, the Judge continues a little later on:
>
> "The domain name is more than a mere address: like trademarks, second-level
> domain names communicate information as to source."
>
> That is an explicit statement of property qualification.  It could not be more
> clear.
>
> Never mind that philosophically the very activity of naming (i.e. te creative
> act) is an act of possession in and of itself.
>
> >
> > Or even and older reference:
> > http://www.internetnews.com/bus-news/article/0,,3_85661,00.html
> > which clearly states that Domain Names are indeed Private Property.
>
> Once again Jeff, good heads-up on this research.  This quote pretty much sums it
> up: "Typically we thought registrants had a two-year license to a domain name,
> but the court is suggesting they have a property interest. As a result, if the
> registry takes a name away from you without a legal basis, than you can sue them
> for civil damages. And that's a powerful thing," Fausett said."
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Sotiris Sotiropoulos
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 118k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208


--
This message was passed to you via the ga-full@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html