Re: [ga] Domain names as observed (was Tucows Response to Cochet tiTransfer Letter)

[Sotiris Sotiropoulos <sotiris@hermesnetwork.com>]

"William X. Walsh" wrote:

> Hello Sotiris,
>
> Sunday, July 29, 2001, 6:42:48 AM, Sotiris Sotiropoulos wrote:
>
> > "William X. Walsh" wrote:

> What he said was that under the law, as it exists today, domain names
> are not property.  His statemnet above, which is FAR from being
> important to the point, merely acknowledges that the congress may pass
> laws to change that in the future.

I beg to differ.  His comment is quite germane to the point.  he makes it clear:  IT IS
UNCLEAR EVEN TO THE JUDGE WHO RULED AGAINST DOMAIN NAMES AS PROPERTY, WHETHER THEY SHOULD BE
CONSIDERED PROPERTY OR NOT.  Like it or not, you cannot change this FACT.

> Legal exports seconded his opinion, an opinion refers to the entire
> written document, Sotiris.  I can tell you have had no legal training
> at all.  Even my limited amount lends itself to an understanding of
> what an opinion is when referenced in this fashion.

I know what a legal opinion is William.  Fact is, his legal "opinion" included the
acknowledgement "that it's not totally clear whether property law should or shouldn't apply
to Web domains, but emphasized that the job of clarifying the law rests with the
legislature, not the courts."  Presumably, the legal experts agreed with the ENTIRE opinion,
INCLUDING this admission.

> >> >> The Harrods case does nothing to advance the concept of domain names
> >> >> being property.  Not by ANY reasonable stretch.
> >>
> >> > Forgive me for not ascribing to your specific standards of REASON, William.  All
> >> > I'm haring from you is the same thing over and over again.  Where are your
> >> > REASONINGS?  Please produce the evidence of which you speak.
> >>
> >> How about facts?
>
> > How about them?  You have yet to produce the "strong precedents", you mentioned.  You
> > cite one case, and even the judge in that case admits his decision may be open to
> > reversal ("The judge acknowledged that it's not totally clear whether property law
> > should or shouldn't apply to Web domains.."
>
> No, what he said is true of ANY case, that the Congress may pass a law
> changing the status.  That does not make the precedent any less
> strong.

You originally said "strong precedents", plural... where are the rest of them?  In any case,
you and I both know that the next judge who rules in a similar case may establish the basis
for a different precedent.

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