Kevin and all,
Kevin, very interesting post. I enjoyed it quite a bit. Now for the rest of my
comments (Se below yours)
Kevin J. Connolly wrote:
> There is absolutely no basis in fact or law for the suggestion that the registration
>of a domain name, without more, creates any kind of property right.
Well stated and correct. Without something like a Trademark on that DN it
is not in and of itself legally property, which is where the TM boys have
a point.
> It is nothing more than a contract right, namely, a contract expectancy that the
>zone file for the relevant domain (e.g., the .com zone file for a SLDomain Name in
>.com) will correctly identify the nameserver(s) for the SLD and that the contact
>information will be so recorded as to give the proper "owner" of the domain name
>control over it. Calling the registrant the "owner" is simply a legal shorthand
>expression for "beneficiary of the pertinent bundle of rights," an expression which,
>tho' legally precise, can be expected to make non-lawyers' eyes glaze over. Hell, it
>makes most lawyers' eyes glaze over.
>
> Where the Intellectual Property rights are created is by means of the content
>accessed through the domain name, i.e., the use made of it. Those rights are very
>closely akin to traditional "tangible" property interests, but even then, they're not
>quite the same.
No intellectual property is not exactly the same as tangible property i.e land,
for instance. However they are nearly looked at in the same manner.
>
>
> A domain name registration is not intellectual property. It's not any kind of
>property. To have an unassailable legal right to use and exploit a domain name, the
>registrant needs to be using the domain name.
Correct.
> Otherwise, only naked contract rights are involved, and in that case, the registry
>could very well run away with "your" domain name, and your sole remedy lie in damages
>� which, if you're not using the domain name for something legitimate, are going to
>be hard to prove.
Indeed this is a very accurate statement. You can easily loose the use of any
intellectual property if you don't take care or it properly.
>
>
> Kevin J. Connolly
>
> >>> James Santagata <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 03/05/99 02:24PM >>>
> At 08:41 AM 3/5/99 -0800, Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote:
> >>I would imagine that is the same argument that allows people
> >>who don't own a garage or drive, to own a car, or the right of people
> >>that don't live in a property to own it.
> >
> >The analogy, as all analogies, stinks.
> >
>
> You may want to reconsider your statement, since the analogy I made
> was perfectly appropriate, and you are quite wrong when you suggest all
> analogies stink.
I have to agree with you here. But MOST analogy's do stink.
>
>
> >One can not own a DN unless one meets certain criteria, one must know how
> >to operate and service the name, or be able to pay someone else to do so.
>
> A DN is property and the only criteria to own one should be the cash
> required to obtain title to the name, and with that the agreement that
> there will not be two exact DNs in any given Tld space. And like land the
> DN can be bought, sold, leased, rented, assigned, transferred or held.
> (whoops, anothering "stinking" analogy).
>
> >This is inherent within the purpose of a DN.
>
> The only thing inherit in the purpose of a DN is to simplify human
> interaction with the computer network and each other.
Good point. And something that is greatly misunderstood.
>
>
> Why do you assume that a purchased DN must be immediately employed?
> Have you ever heard of buying, holding or developing assets? As I stated
> earlier, in the U.S. I can purchase a car, without knowing how to service,
> operate it or even seek to hire someone to do it for me. But none the less
> I have title to that property. You seem to be opposed to private property.
I don't think that Roeland is opposed to private property. But in reality few
people, even well educated ones understand the differences in TYPES
of property and the their value or developed value.
>
>
> >It is absolutely ludicrous to
> >assign DN's to folks who will not use it and don't know how, just because
> >they want one. They either meet the bar, or they don't join the club. The
> >bar is rather low, so quit whining.
>
> I take offense at your characterization of my arguments as "whining". It
> couldn't be farther from the truth.
>
> >From your posting, I fancy you to be quite an elitist. And frankly, I don't
> want someone like you trying to tell me what I can and can't own.
>
> Next you'll be telling me I have to move from my 4-bedroom home because
> I only have 2 people living there, and the "inherit purpose" of a
> 4-bedroom home is to house 4 persons.
>
> As a free-market capitalist, I am not suggesting that DN's be "assigned"
> for free. Some value must be placed on these assets to allow a measured
> distribution of DNs. But I am saying, that the only requirement for
> purchasing a DN should be money. And with that money, any individual
> can purchase a DN, and once the DN is acquired, there does not need to a
> requirement to put the DN into play.
Interesting view. I agree the determining factor is that and exchange of
property (in this case money) is what defines a thing as property with
respect to a DN. I agree that once purchased, it is not necessary to ever use
or show use of it. This is also borne out in the law as well.
>
>
> James Santagata
>
>
Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Contact Number: 972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
