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

[Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com>]

On Sun, Feb 04, 2001 at 07:40:05AM -0800, Eric Dierker wrote:
> We are all on the same page here.  Defining domain is a worthwhile
> endeavor. 

On the contrary, it's a total waste of time. 

> We cannot do it in a vacuum.  Politics and economics are involved. 

Actually, it's the law that defines these things.

> The majority here seem to view domains as property of which the word is
> reflective. 

There is no uniform definition of "property".  There is no uniform 
definition of "ownership".  Both of these things are defined 
operationally in the legal system, as a bundle of specific statutory 
rights.  That is precisely what is happening with domain names -- the 
definition of the particular rights that obtain with domain names is 
underway in the legal systems of the world as we speak.

> I simply believe that the issue is to large and outside the capability and
> purview of this group.

You are much more diplomatic than I.

> 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.

Utter waste of time, but if people want to debate it on the GA it's 
fine with me.

-- 
Kent Crispin                               "Be good, and you will be
kent@songbird.com                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain
--
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