ICANN/DNSO
DNSO Mailling lists archives

[wg-review]


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

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


Kent Crispin wrote:

> 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.

You appear to be in a minority position on this issue Kent.

> > We cannot do it in a vacuum.  Politics and economics are involved.
>
> Actually, it's the law that defines these things.

Excuse me for saying so, but what a truly simplistic and naive statement!  Which
"law" Kent, WIPO's?  The UDRP is a WIPO/ICANN co-production and it appears to be
the only "law" that is being applied to domains...  A "law" or process which
according to you has no ultimate legal sanction according to you ("ICANN has no
legal authority").

> > 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.

Which legal system?  "Specific statutory rights" in which legal system(s) Kent?
Suppose someone in Timbuctoo has a trademark on the term "songbird"... would you
want to leave any potential outcome regarding the domain songbird.com in the
hands of the Timbuctooan legal system?

Sotiris Sotiropoulos
        Hermes Network, Inc.



S/MIME Cryptographic Signature



<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>