RE: [wg-review] 11. IDNH Centers of Interest

["bukko" <bukko@od2.com>]

I can't believe this argument exists.
Who on earth really cares what the name is, IDNH or IDNO, or DONUT?
Why does it make a difference?
Everyone is aware of the legal situation. No-one owns a domain name, just
the right to use it.
The ownership agreement for domain names has more in common with a lease
than a sale, so surely IDNH is more correct, but does it really matter?
Why not discuss something important instead?

bukko

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-wg-review@dnso.org [mailto:owner-wg-review@dnso.org]On Behalf Of
DPF
Sent: 12 January 2001 09:49
To: wg-review@dnso.org
Subject: Re: [wg-review] 11. IDNH Centers of Interest

On Fri, 12 Jan 2001 17:03:23 +0800, Bret Busby wrote:

>The first is this; a domain name is an asset. The pirates
>register/buy/whatever a domain name, then, put it up for sale, at a
>price far in excess of (hundreds of times of) its cost to them. For
>example, if a domain name costs a pirate 17USD, which I understand to be
>about the annual cost of registration, and, the pirate puts a selling
>price of 3400USD (two hundred times its cost to the pirate), then, the
>domain name is regarded as a commodity to be bought and sold, and, it is
>owned by whoever owns the registration of the domain name.

But is a seller selling the domain name per se or the right to hold
and use the domain name?

AT the end of the day the DNS is a voluntary mapping system used to
point people to IP addresses.  ISPs are not forced to use and
recognise it.  In fact around 5% of ISPs have their own private top
level domains not recognised by the majority of the world's ISPs.

At best a domain name is the right to have the ICANN/DOC Root Server A
point to a name server which points to a name server which resolves to
your IP address.  I don't see how this is an asset people actually own
- it is a right of recognition on a root servers most ISPS recognise.

I do accept that there is great value in domain names, that holders
should have rights not to have them taken away from then (except
limited cases such as cyber squatting).  In fact much of my time
within ISOCNZ has been spent looking at how one can have a Shared
Registry System which will guarantee the right of the name holder to
retain their name if they swap Registrars or a Registrar fails.

But at the end of the day I still don't see a domain name as something
an individual or organisation can actually own.  It is a renewable
right to hold and use in my opinion.

DPF
________________________________________________________________________
<david at farrar dot com>
NZ Usenet FAQs - http://www.dpf.ac.nz/usenet/nz
ICQ 29964527
--
This message was passed to you via the wg-review@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe wg-review" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

--
This message was passed to you via the wg-review@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe wg-review" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html