Re: [ga] Stolen domains, transfers, WHOIS, audit trails, and system integrity

[Jsavirimuthu@aol.com]

In a message dated 7/12/02 03:42:25 GMT Standard Time, karl@CaveBear.com writes:


> There are many who think that our Internet situation is somehow new and
> unique.  It is not. The internet is not the first situation in which
> people have had to deal with cross jurisdictional protection of perceived
> rights.  In fact, issues such as these have been around since the time of
> Columbus.  And solutions have existed since time time of the Medicis.


Thanks Karl -- I found the recent report reflecting on your thoughts helpful. With regard to the above, colleagues (particularly those who have read Michael's commentary on the WIPO report) will recognise the following:
“TheDomain Name System (DNS) has presented a set of problems for intellectual property policy, as well as a set of opportunities, that are perhaps unique inthe historical development of the intellectual property system.  The problems arise from the spontaneous adaptation of a technical addressing systemto functions and purposes beyond those for which it was originallydesigned.  In addition to providing a human friendly, reliable and stablerooting system, the DNS has given rise to identifiers that are used forcommercial, cultural, governmental, political and social purposes, both on theInternet itself and in similar contexts beyond the Internet.  Theopportunities arise from the hierarchical design of the DNS and the set of contractual relations that bind ICANN, registries, registrars and domain nameholders in various relationships, thereby providing a means for implementingcommon terms of policy in those relationships.”


Would I be right in inferring from your general view both on this email list and recent account of your thoughts in the newspaper article that we now have:
(i) dissonance between theory and practice (ie ad hoc jurisprudence or in your words "amateur" rulings)
(ii) governance policy being informed by pragmatism rather than established "theoretical" arguments; consequently the "first come first served" rule becoming captured by the rent seeking conglomerates?

Some clarification would be helpful.

Joseph Savirimuthu
Liverpool Law School