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

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

We are all on the same page here. Defining domain is a worthwhile endeavor.  We
cannot do it in a vacuum.  Politics and economics are involved. The majority here
seem to view domains as property of which the word is reflective.

I simply believe that the issue is to large and outside the capability and
purview of this group. I believe that the work done to date is high quality stuff
and should be forwarded to the GA for them to come up with a definitive
definition. I think we should also forward Sotiris to the GA to have him chair
the committee to define the term. (I know that sounds funny and it is meant to
have two meanings)

Sincerely,

Joop Teernstra wrote:

> At 16:03 2/02/01 -0500, Sotiropoulos wrote:
> >
> >
> >Eric Dierker wrote:
>
> >> <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 subscribe to this point of view. The act of Naming is a creative act. The
> DN is its Autor's  Intellectual Property.
> A Domain that is developed into a well connected and well-known website and
> becomes a Brand, is certainly also its owner's economic property.
>
> What concerns me is that by trying to "define" a Domain Name now, we are
> forgetting that both the service and the control over Domain Names are
> still very fluid processes.
>
> "Defining" a DN (as in "legal definition")  is therefore not only a
> semantic process, but also a political one.
> Courts the world over, will do the defining for us. Legislators will fill
> in the blanks. We have to be part of this process.
>
> Registries derive a great deal of power (and income) from the totally
> arbitrary idea that DNames need yearly "refreshing" against payment of a fee.
>
> Therefore, registries and registrars will not readily "define" DN as
> property of the registrant.
>
> Registrants, on the other hand, looking at the contract they are forced to
> sign with the registrar, feel very insecure with the idea that their Domain
> is not really *theirs* to own, but is treated as a kind of rental property
> from which they may be evicted via UDRP or due to non-timely payment of the
> yearly fee.
>
> The current situation, however, may change as Registrants will get their
> representation in ICANN and their input in the registry contracts.
> This is the process that needs to be speeded up.
>
> --Joop--
> www.idno.org
> --
> 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