Re: [wg-review] [DNDEF] short quizz 9,10

[Joop Teernstra <terastra@terabytz.co.nz>]

At 16:37 8/02/01 -0800, Kent Crispin wrote:
>On Fri, Feb 09, 2001 at 12:31:46AM +0000, Jefsey Morfin wrote:
>> Now, the problem is the UDRP can apply to many things (actually
>> to everything which is defined in the dictionnary) but not to the DNs.
>> Because DNs are not defined in the dirctionnary and not defined
>> ine the UDRP (while some other words are).
>
>You don't need to have a definition of the word "grass" in order to 
>mow a lawn.  In fact, I'm quite sure that people of all linguistic
>persuasions can run a lawn mower, without having to worry even that they
>all have a common understanding of what the word "grass" means.  It is 
>quite common, even in the law, for things to simply be defined through 
>operation and familiarity.
>

Now you're going overboard, Kent.
Would you find it acceptable when someone said: You don't need a definition
of property to control squatting? (in the real world)
You don't need a definition of a Trade Mark to control infringements?

You don't need lawyers, just substitute them with policemen and engineers.
(where in law is anything of even the slightest complexity "defined through 
operation and familiarity"?)

I was close to agreeing with you when you said that discussing a DN
definition in this WG was a waste of time, but this reply to Jefsey  has
managed to make me change my mind.
You are talking about *our* lawns.


--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