E Lisse elicited,
> > 1.) REGISTRANT - Owns any and all information for any Domain
> > whether registered in any TLD name space or not.
>
> And owns the the domain per se.
I wonder if there is a domain per se...
> > 2.) The REGISTRY- Owns the database for the management of
> > information pertaining to all TLD's that are contained within that
> > database.
>
> But you do realize that a database can be sold...
>
I realize that sale is a right of ownership. But sale of 2 is not sale
of the
info contained in it, because that info belongs either to 1 or 3.
> > 3.) The REGISTRAR- Owns the information which relates to the
> > registrar's information services in any TLD name space for which
> > that registrar has permissions from a REGISTRY.
>
> My definition is different:
>
> 3.) The REGISTRAR: Owns nothing. Rips off 1.) and 2.)
The idea is to prevent polarization; it may be that either 1 or 2 can
*perform the role* of 3, but by setting forth the concept of a
'middleman,' both can see that the line between them is a pretty
nebulous thing. A registrar operates on the registrants info in order
to put it in the registry; since this operation involves other
(informational) processes which are not *unique to either 1 or 2, its
better to 'reify' it as 3.
Admittedly, the lines between 1 and 3, and between 2 and 3, are
also nebulous -- but now its easy to conceive a 'market' in 3s, so
that in particular, if a given 1-3 line doesnt feel comfortable, one is
free to take ones trade somewhere else.
--------------
The digital revolution is nothing if not the re-examination of every
legal definition that ever walked the line. Ones intuitive sense that
'information 'about' an act is different from the act no longer serves
when the act has the same form; i.e. is itself as digital as the info.
Historically, definition has been a process of relating X to more
'fundamental' terms Y and Z, e.g. a nursing home contracts to
provide "...such personal services as may be reasonably furnished
for the health, safety, grooming and well-being of the Occupant,"
because health, safety, etc are more 'obvious' concepts than
'nursing home.' That is, one does not expect to find Health, say,
defined by 'what a nursing home provides,' but by metabolic rates,
ability to resist or respond to ambient conditions, and so on.
The digital dilemma is that there are no fundamental 'grounds' for
preferentially relating one datum to another -- and yet it seems like
there *should be. The challenge then is not to try to 'discover'
fundamentals where there are none, but to *agree to simulate the
role of fundamentals* -- and history has shown time and again that
a trichotomy ('this that and the other') saves a lot of hassle
compared to a Manichaean ('take it or leave it') dichotomy.
Since, in this sense, the DNS mess is no different in form than the
censorship mess or the education/ propaganda mess, it seems
worthwhile to take this conceptual approach seriously; otherwise
some WIPO-style bureaucracy will end up with the whole schmear
by default.
kerry
