Re: [wg-review] [DNDEF] a few comments
Jefsey Morfin wrote:
> Joop, Sotiris, Greg,
>
> Great!
> And what about the ones who coined the domain name concept?
> Do we own the world? If yes may could we embark into a Tresor hunt?
> My own date is sept 1978. Mail to Italcable and to Bundespost.
> Other contenders Bob Trehin, Joe Rinde, Mike Rude, Paolo Popescu.
Why didn't you patent it then? Or were you already paid for your work on DNs by
your (then) employer?
> >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?"
>
> Well, Sotiris, what a lot of unassumed statements in a few lines!
>
> - yes we can define it. A definitition is a description, but neither a
> law nor a belief. You can make many laws or creeds over a definition.
Which is precisely why we must define domain names. At least then we'll have some
basis on which to apply laws to domain names... as it seems a pretty arbitrary
"process" at this point!
> - only the definition of what a DN is may help you determining wich
> parts of the DN may relive from IP.
Again, this is just one more reason why the definition issue is so crucial.
> - the UDRP is a stand-alone procedure applied by contract to
> DN which per se has nothing to do with DN (please read the UDRP
> document and come back withtheir definition of the DN).
Nonetheless, by granting the domain name to a "rightful" claimant the UDRP is
clearly stating that it *is* property, just *not* the defendant's property!
> - that ICANN has not sanctionned but created the UDRP as legal (? ;-) )
> protection does not change anything to the nature of the DN. It
> only lead people to believe they are proected by it while they are not.
What is "protected" by the UDRP? Rights to property? afterall, wasn't it the WIPO
who pressed ICANN to sanction (illegally, as they "have no legal authority" a la
Kent) the UDRP in the first place? Then why are *some* people's/organization's
rights more valid than others?
> As soon as any one claims there is a property in the DN, my lawyer
> will claim a chare in it (as several people of my Tymnet network culture
> and many others of Vint/Jon's and others from Berkley's culture). A
> royalty of $1/year per DN would be good enough: I am ready to make a
> Trust with Joe, Bob and their wifes, Jon's heirs, Vint familly and a few
> others. Good money for our heirs 50 years+ after we are all dead (this
> is why I quoted Paolo: he only rose the problem but he is probably
> the youngest ... long before Internet peole came with a saxon semantic).
Again, I don't think you'll get very far without a patent.
> <snip>
> True, this is why there must be a contract. What is currently signed
> has absolutely no legal value since it is related to something not
> defined, not even described as a good or a as service and said to
> be in a moving environment which therefore may change its very
> nature daily (which bythe way is the case).
Perhaps this *is* what is intended, i.e. it's meant to be a shell game after
all...
Sotiris Sotiropoulos
Hermes Network, Inc.
S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
|