Re: [wg-review] Re: dndef, 9

[Eric Dierker <ERIC@HI-TEK.COM>]

Ok, so now that you emphatically disagree. Let us set forth that it can be used in different ways and one has to look at
the context in order to clearly ascertain it's meaning.  Can we agree that it can be a Noun? Adjective?

To be sure I agree with your basic premise that we reach the least amount of obsurdity if we consider Domain Names as
property. OTOH I believe the contracts Mr. Crispin refers to are using it as a service, I am wincing here because I only
have second hand knowledge of some of those contracts.

Sincerely,

Sotiropoulos wrote:

> 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

--
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