Re: Brands, TLDs, and Private Ownership (Was:Re: [wg-c]GTLDStraw poll)

["Kevin J. Connolly" <CONNOLLK@rspab.com>]

>
>>>> "A.M. Rutkowski" <amr@netmagic.com> 08/18/99 11:53AM >>> wrote:
>Kevin,
>
>yada - some of which we agree on, some of which we don't
>
>>has the right to hold .com in perpetuity is simply offensive.  It is 
>>indistinguishable
>>from a steward pretending to own the property with which he is entrusted.
>
>That's your construct, not mine.  Not everyone
>in the world belongs to that religion and accepts
>its orthodox tenets.
>
>
>--tony
>

It's not a matter of religion.  If the steward is entrusted with 
something of value and he converts it to his own personal 
property, it is a form of theft.  No need to dress it up as a 
religious strawman and set fire to it.  Just because religion 
condemns murder, theft and adultery doesn't mean than 
an atheist can't say that murder, theft and adultery are wrong.

IMO, NSI's assertion that it owns .com and/or that it has any 
property rights in the associated contacts database is a theft.
The fact that the NSF has not done anything about it does
not diminish the gravity of the wrong.

KJC

**********************************************************************
The information contained in this electronic message is confidential
and is or may be protected by the attorney-client privilege, the work
product doctrine, joint defense privileges, trade secret protections,
and/or other applicable protections from disclosure.  If the reader of
this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified
that any use, dissemination, distribution or reproduction of this com-
munication is strictly prohibited.  If you have received this communi-
cation in error, please immediately notify us by calling our Help Desk
at 212-541-2000 ext.3314, or by e-mail to helpdesk@rspab.com
**********************************************************************