[wg-review] Re: dndef, 9

[Sotiropoulos <sotiris@hermesnetwork.com>]

Eric Dierker wrote:

<snip>
>My point is that I am unsure whether or not we are being foolish in
>trying to define Domain.  I believe the Japanese term I am referring to
>is "Mu".
<snip>
>Courts, universities, the U.N., the USG can't define it in one
>language.  It is like defining Theos.
<snip>

I disagree Eric.  I think we can define it, and we must do so ASAP.  I believe a domain *is* Property.
In fact, I believe a domain *is* Intellectual Property, the ICANN-sanctioned UDRP makes this an ipso facto
statement (albeit indirectly).  The question I have, is simple:  "Who does the property belong to by right?"
In other words, does it belong to someone who invented or coined it? or does it belong to somebody else?
The registration of a domain name can be compared to creation.  What is created (i.e. a domain) did not
exist before this act.  The service aspect of the act itself is provided by ICANN, but not the actual *creative*
keystrokes.  Not to mention, the knowledge and foresight that went into such creation.
I'll give you an example which is quite close to myself.  My Company, Hermes Network, Inc.  is the owner
of the domain http://www.greekphilosophy.com   Before we came along, this domain did not exist.  We created
this domain name through the *service* which NSI (then) provided.  NSI provided the "service", the inspiration
for the *creative act* was ours.  Now, the generic character of our domain, also implies a great deal of
responsibility to a community (at least, that's how we see it).  This does not mean that any community/organization
has any more right to our domain than we do.  We saw the opportunity first, and we took it.  Our knowledge base
and foresight put us in a position to make a calculated investment, and we took it.

>Perhaps if we look at the Communist model of National Resources we can
>see parallels. But that only leads us to conclude that Domain is
>undefinable except that it is everything and nothing at the same time.


I'd rather not use any Communist models, thanks.  When my forefathers, the Arcadians were laying the
foundations for the new metropolis (Megalopolis) of their federation, they considered Plato for the job of Law-Giver.
However, when they heard he was a proponent of common property, they went elsewhere.

>Domain Names are only definable in the immediate context of the contract
>in which they are referred.  Parties are free to define Domain as they
>see fit for contractual purposes. For the purposes of contracts dealing
>with ICANN or any part thereof, the definitions of Domain are those
>definitions contained therein.

Again, I cannot disagree with you more.

Sincerely,

Sotiris Sotiropoulos
      Hermes Network, Inc.



Sotiris Sotiropoulos
          Hermes Network, Inc. 


--
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