On Wed, Jun 30, 1999 at 12:45:38AM +0000, William X. Walsh wrote:
> >Karl, I am not making *any* arguments here, and from what I have seen
> >of the proposed law, I don't favor it. I am merely pointing out that
> >you are not using logic or reasoning in your "argument".
> >
> >The fact is that domain names are new and have unique
> >characteristics, and their status under the law is not yet clear.
>
> BINGO!
> Kent summed it up "their status under the law is not yet clear."
>
> BTW, this will be my new quote in my .sigfile
Wow, I am indeed honored. But, I don't think it will last....
> This one comment sums up the VERY reason why mandatory arbitration in
> domain names has NO business being considered seriously.
No, it doesn't. In fact, the two issues are largely independent.
Arbitration should of course follow whatever law there is, just as a
court should follow whatever law there is. But when there is no
applicable law, and a decision is situationally mandated(*), a decision
is made. This is true in any arbitration, or any court. The law
never covers all situations; part of the art of law is trying to find
justifiable matches between the real world on one hand, and codes and
cases, on the other. This is also true with arbitration.
> In your own
> words, Kent, "the law is not yet clear."
Clarity is relative, of course...
(*) situationally mandated: the situation is such that "no
decision" is actually a decision.
--
Kent Crispin "Do good, and you'll be
[EMAIL PROTECTED] lonesome." -- Mark Twain
