Re: [ga] DNSO ICANN board member

["Louise Ferguson" <louise.f@ntlworld.com>]

> Sure -- that's known as "eminent domain".  The government can indeed
> take away your land, to, for example, build a power plant, whether it is
> in use or not.  This happens all the time.

Think there's an element of 'public good' in there somewhere Kent, not
private greed
> You can test this easily -- just stop paying your property taxes.

Kent, prehaps you should take a 'high school year abroad' before trying to
apply US law to the rest of the world. (we don't have property tax here in
the UK and local taxes attach to the person, not property)
>
> "Ownership" and "property rights" are *not* simple things.
> Buying real property, for example a house, is a very complicated affair
> legally, and it is vastly different from registering a domain name.

Of course it is vastly different - who said it was the same?
But there are certain principles of natural justice that have been adopted
into the legal code of many countries, including in the areas of land law,
commercial law and contract law.

Why is the domain name dispute procedure implemented by Nominet (.co.uk
registrar) voluntary for both parties? Probably because under the Unfair
Contract Terms Act now in place in many EU countries following an EU
directive, a unilateral and compulsory change to contract terms issued by a
seller to a consumer, substantially changing the conditions of the contract,
would probably be deemed 'unfair'. So when arbitration was put in place, it
was made voluntary. Why do we have such an Act? Why was there such a
directive? Because a contract where one powerful party calls all the shots
is deemed unjust by many of us.

I'm just waiting for someone to take the
NSI/Register/etc registration contracts to bits under the UCTA and see how
they stand up (terms found unfair are deleted from the contract).

With the UDRP, there now seem to be implied terms in these contracts that
should be written up front, for everyone to see. If (a) I have to accept the
UDRP when I sign the
contract and (b) every registrar for gTLDs includes the UDRP in their
contract and (c) under the UDRP I am providing evidence of  bad faith
registration or use if I try to resell for greater than purchase price, then
maybe the contract should state that it is forbidden to transfer for more
than purchase price.

If not having set up a web site on a domain can count against me under UDRP,
maybe we should be warned: "Failure by the registrant to set up a web site
within x months of registering this domain may be interpreted as lack of any
rights or legitimate interests exisiting in this domain on the part of the
registrant, with reference to the UDRP" or in plain English, "you may lose
this domain if you do not built your site immediately."

> The arguments that use analogies between "ownership" of real property
> and registration of domain names are simple minded idiotic garbage, and
> anyone who had even a shred of pride in their intellectual abilities
> should avoid them like they were thrice used kitty litter.
>
So you have experience of thrice used kitty litter? Sad.

Louise
>


--
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