Re: [ga] Re: [centr-ga] Re: [nc-deletes] FW: [council] ConcernsRegarding Report of DeletesTask Force

[Marc Schneiders <marc@fuchsia.bijt.net>]

[I've omitted the many cc's.]

On Sun, 13 Apr 2003, at 23:02 [=GMT-0400], John Berryhill Ph.D. J.D. wrote:

> it is not as though the "domain name"
> expires.  It is the contract - the basis for the domain name's existence -
> which expires.  The domain name ceases to be.

A banknote that is expired or a cheque does not cease to be. We call them
invalid or something like that.

> It is certainly true that a registrar may be required to lock a domain name
> during litigation,

> What ICANN staff is saying would be analogous to a dairy farm being required
> to keep a shipment of milk in a fresh condition during litigation over
> ownership thereof.

Rather the idea seems to be that the milk should be deep frozen.

> It can't.  It is in the nature of milk to go sour.
> Likewise, it is in the nature of a domain name registered for a fixed period
> of time, to expire.

As with life. But what about a guy sentenced to death? Will he be hanged
before another trial in which he is a party, is over?

> Requiring a domain name to remain registered past its term for the sake of
> litigation over the domain name makes as much sense as requiring the same
> thing of a commodities option contract.  If you have an option to buy oil on
> May 1 at $40 a barrel, and someone disputes the ownership of that option,
> then if you do not resolve your dispute prior to May 1, then you have nothing
> to fight over.  In that context, nobody would dream of "exteding" the
> contract merely for the sake of litigation, and it makes as much sense in
> this context.

Not exactly. By nature an option to buy has an end date, which cannot be
'always'. A domain name can be 'forever'.


--
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