Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #639
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST            Sunday, July 29 2001            Volume 01 : Number 639

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2001 12:06:12 +0800
From: "erica" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Consumer/Registrant Protection Consitituency 

Hi Sotiris,
In response to the thread below - previouslu under the header: : Re: [ga]
First Draft of "Letter from Registrars Constituency to Stuart Lynn"

Perhaps I'm missing something, but I don't see the purpose of defining a
domain name in this context and would be concerned that any definitation may
in the future, serve to unreasonably limit the scope of the proposed
constituency.
As I see it, if a new constituency is to be created, then the following key
threshold issues need to be determined: NAME; PURPOSE, MEMBERSHIP;  FUNDING

NAME:
If there is general agreement that we need a constituency whose job is to
ensure that the interests of consumers of domain names (Registrants)
interests are protected, then its a good idea to ensure that's reflected in
the name:  ie. Lets call the proposed new constituency the
Consumer/Registrants Protection Constituency (C/RPC)

PURPOSE

It is a good idea to set out the Broad objectives of the proposed
constituency in its founding documentation.  I'd suggest something along the
following lines:
1.  To provide a forum for the identification and discussion of key consumer
concerns relating to the administration of the Domain Name System and supply
of domain names;
2.  To represent the interests of Registrants (and potential registrants?)on
ICANN fora;
3.  To work with other DNSO constituencies and ICANN staff to promote the
development of consensus based consumer protection policies and procedures.

MEMBERSHIP
This should clarify who is eligible to become a member and should be linked
with  the issue of membership fees.  Key questions include: Should there be
several classes of membership or just one?  Possible membership classes
include:
1.  Any individual (membership fee?)
2. Individual Registrants (domain name owners) - (membership fee?)
3.  Consumer protection organisations  (memership fee?)

FUNDING

As I see it, there are essentially two potential funding sources -
membership fees and sponsorship.  Sponsor support usually takes a little
time to establish, so I'd suggest that membership fees should be set at a
level to provide the primary source of funding (without at the same time
being prohibitive to individuals).  However, if the fee were set at, say,
$US10, 1000 members would be needed to ensure an income of $10,000.  Since
it is unlikely that the constituency would get this level of support from
the outset, it may be necessary to think a bit more laterally.
One possibility which could be considered, would be to seek the support of
ISOC for the creation of such a constituency.  Their theme is "The Internet
is for Everyone' and it may be that they could be pursuaded to provide the
organisational support necessary during the constituency start up period -
and maybe publicise it to their membership list.

//food for thought.

erica

Subject: Re: [ga] First Draft of "Letter from Registrars Constituency to
Stuart Lynn"

> erica wrote:
>
> > At the risk of drawing  flack and flame mail, my own view is that it
would
> > be worth considering the creation of a Consumer/Registrant  Protection
> > Constituency -  rather than an individuals constituency.  While, in a
sense
> > this is just a change of name, it also provides a much needed point of
> > focus - with the result that attention is shifted from the constituency
> > membership to to purpose of the constituency.  By emphasising the
purpose,
> > it would be much easier to seek the funding required to support such a
> > constituency from potential donors (such as industry, government or
other
> > public interest or consumer protection organisations)  and clarify
> > membership benefits.
>
> Erica,
>
> This idea has possibilities.  Methinks there are some merits to this
> proposition.  Perhaps we can develop this in more detail?   As there would
need
> to be a definition of the position of consumers/regitrants, which your
proposed
> CRPC would be advocating, would it not be wise to finally include a
discussion
> on the definition of domain names in the new weltanschauung?
>
> Sotiris Sotiropoulos
>
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>
>

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2001 23:25:09 -0400
From: "L Gallegos" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Domain names as observed (was Tucows Response to   Cochet	tiTransfer Letter)

Joop, may I say once again that there are no "property" rights in a 
domain name itself.  Rights in the use of the name are conferred 
by the registrar/registrant agreement and that is where a registrant 
should look prior to registering the domain.  However, just because 
a domain name is not property, per se, it does not mean that there 
are no rights in it.  Again, those rights are determined by the 
registration agreement and can differ from registry to registry.

Leah

On 29 Jul 2001, at 0:30, Joop Teernstra wrote:

> At 22:37 27/07/2001 -0400, L Gallegos wrote:
> >   Registrants, IMO, should be able to feel
> >secure in the use of a registered domain.
> 
> I am glad to hear you say that. :-)
> As far as is legally proper, in the interest of the Domain Holders but
> also of the stability of the DNS, they should *be* secure. Any
> argument that Domain Names are not the registrant's property, to
> dispose or transfer as the registrant sees fit, serves to destabilize
> the DNS.
> 
> 

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2001 21:27:57 -0700
From: "William S. Lovell" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Domain names as observed (was Tucows Response to   Cochet	 tiTransfer Letter)

- --------------5905D760B836C4E6801D0A98
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

L Gallegos wrote:

> Joop, may I say once again that there are no "property" rights in a
> domain name itself.  Rights in the use of the name are conferred
> by the registrar/registrant agreement and that is where a registrant
> should look prior to registering the domain.  However, just because
> a domain name is not property, per se, it does not mean that there
> are no rights in it.  Again, those rights are determined by the
> registration agreement and can differ from registry to registry.
>
> Leah

I would have to disagree with this entirely.  To say that "rights in the
use of the name are conferred by the registrar/registrant agreement"
would imply that the registrar had rights to confer, which it does not.
Rights to the use of the registrar's facilities are what are conferred by
that agreement, without regard to the domain name itself which, if
created ("conceived," "invented," etc.) by the registrant, could only
be the intellectual property of that registrant.   I realize, of course,
that these agreements say otherwise, but it is fundamental to the
law that one cannot convey what one does not own, so any portion
of any document that pretends to say otherwise would be null and
void on its face.  Too bad no one has the wherewithal (or the ***)
to prove that.

IAAL; this is not legal advice but a scholarly observation.

Bill Lovell

>
>
> On 29 Jul 2001, at 0:30, Joop Teernstra wrote:
>
> > At 22:37 27/07/2001 -0400, L Gallegos wrote:
> > >   Registrants, IMO, should be able to feel
> > >secure in the use of a registered domain.
> >
> > I am glad to hear you say that. :-)
> > As far as is legally proper, in the interest of the Domain Holders but
> > also of the stability of the DNS, they should *be* secure. Any
> > argument that Domain Names are not the registrant's property, to
> > dispose or transfer as the registrant sees fit, serves to destabilize
> > the DNS.
> >
> >
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

- --
Any terms above that are not familiar to the reader may
possibly be explained at:
"WHAT IS": http://whatis.techtarget.com/
GLOSSARY: http://www.icann.org/general/glossary.htm
Archives of posted emails on various General Assembly
mailing lists and other ICANN information can be found at:
http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

- --------------5905D760B836C4E6801D0A98
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
<html>
&nbsp;
<p>L Gallegos wrote:
<blockquote TYPE=CITE>Joop, may I say once again that there are no "property"
rights in a
<br>domain name itself.&nbsp; Rights in the use of the name are conferred
<br>by the registrar/registrant agreement and that is where a registrant
<br>should look prior to registering the domain.&nbsp; However, just because
<br>a domain name is not property, per se, it does not mean that there
<br>are no rights in it.&nbsp; Again, those rights are determined by the
<br>registration agreement and can differ from registry to registry.
<p>Leah</blockquote>
I would have to disagree with this entirely.&nbsp; To say that "rights
in the
<br>use of the name are conferred by the registrar/registrant agreement"
<br>would imply that the registrar had rights to confer, which it does
not.
<br>Rights to the use of the registrar's <i>facilities</i> are what are
conferred by
<br>that agreement, without regard to the domain name itself which, if
<br>created ("conceived," "invented," etc.) by the registrant, could only
<br>be the intellectual property of that registrant.&nbsp;&nbsp; I realize,
of course,
<br>that these agreements say otherwise, but it is fundamental to the
<br>law that one cannot convey what one does not own, so any portion
<br>of any document that pretends to say otherwise would be null and
<br>void on its face.&nbsp; Too bad no one has the wherewithal (or the
***)
<br>to prove that.
<p>IAAL; this is not legal advice but a scholarly observation.
<p>Bill Lovell
<br>&nbsp;
<blockquote TYPE=CITE>&nbsp;
<p>On 29 Jul 2001, at 0:30, Joop Teernstra wrote:
<p>> At 22:37 27/07/2001 -0400, L Gallegos wrote:
<br>> >&nbsp;&nbsp; Registrants, IMO, should be able to feel
<br>> >secure in the use of a registered domain.
<br>>
<br>> I am glad to hear you say that. :-)
<br>> As far as is legally proper, in the interest of the Domain Holders
but
<br>> also of the stability of the DNS, they should *be* secure. Any
<br>> argument that Domain Names are not the registrant's property, to
<br>> dispose or transfer as the registrant sees fit, serves to destabilize
<br>> the DNS.
<br>>
<br>>
<p>--
<br>This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
<br>Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
<br>("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
<br>Archives at <a href="http://www.dnso.org/archives.html">http://www.dnso.org/archives.html</a></blockquote>

<p>--
<br>Any terms above that are not familiar to the reader may
<br>possibly be explained at:
<br>"WHAT IS": <A HREF="http://whatis.techtarget.com/">http://whatis.techtarget.com/</A>
<br>GLOSSARY: <A HREF="http://www.icann.org/general/glossary.htm">http://www.icann.org/general/glossary.htm</A>
<br>Archives of posted emails on various General Assembly
<br>mailing lists and other ICANN information can be found at:
<br><A HREF="http://www.dnso.org/archives.html">http://www.dnso.org/archives.html</A>
<br>&nbsp;</html>

- --------------5905D760B836C4E6801D0A98--

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2001 01:07:33 -0400
From: "L Gallegos" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Domain names as observed (was Tucows Response to   Cochet	 tiTransfer Letter)

On 28 Jul 2001, at 21:27, William S. Lovell wrote:

> 
> 
> L Gallegos wrote:
> 
> > Joop, may I say once again that there are no "property" rights in a
> > domain name itself.  Rights in the use of the name are conferred by
> > the registrar/registrant agreement and that is where a registrant
> > should look prior to registering the domain.  However, just because
> > a domain name is not property, per se, it does not mean that there
> > are no rights in it.  Again, those rights are determined by the
> > registration agreement and can differ from registry to registry.
> >
> > Leah
> 
> I would have to disagree with this entirely.  To say that "rights in
> the use of the name are conferred by the registrar/registrant
> agreement" would imply that the registrar had rights to confer, which
> it does not. Rights to the use of the registrar's facilities are what
> are conferred by that agreement, without regard to the domain name
> itself which, if created ("conceived," "invented," etc.) by the
> registrant, could only be the intellectual property of that
> registrant.   I realize, of course, that these agreements say
> otherwise, but it is fundamental to the law that one cannot convey
> what one does not own, so any portion of any document that pretends to
> say otherwise would be null and void on its face.  Too bad no one has
> the wherewithal (or the ***) to prove that.

Since what you are contracting for is a registration (a service), the 
registry/registrar can set conditions for the use and term of that 
registration.  It is not ownership of the name itself in any case.  It 
is a service provided under certain conditions.  Whether that 
service can be cancelled for whatever reasons stated in the 
agreement is dependent on that agreement.  Cancellation of the 
service would amount to revokation of the use of the domain name. 
 
In any case, a registrant should not have to be concerned about 
whether he will have the use of the domain.  Unless the law has 
been broken in some way and and a court order is issued to revoke 
the use of the name, the legitimate registrant would have the use of 
the domain.

A property manager for an apartment complex does not 
necessarily own the complex, but has the rights to lease 
apartments within that property.  The tenant does not own the 
apartment, but does have whatever rights are conferred under the 
lease agreement.  He may or may not be able to sublet the 
apartment, sell, will or trade his rights in the lease contract, use it 
for something other than his domicile, etc.  It would all depend on 
the lease contract.  As long as the tenant continues to pay his 
"rent" and/or fees and does not violate the terms of the lease 
agreement, he has the right to enjoy the use of that apartment.  

I don't see a registration as anything different, really, except that 
there is no physical property involved, but just a contract for a 
service.  

Leah

> 
> IAAL; this is not legal advice but a scholarly observation.
> 
> Bill Lovell
> 
> 
> >
> >
> > On 29 Jul 2001, at 0:30, Joop Teernstra wrote:
> >
> > > At 22:37 27/07/2001 -0400, L Gallegos wrote:
> > > >   Registrants, IMO, should be able to feel
> > > >secure in the use of a registered domain.
> > >
> > > I am glad to hear you say that. :-)
> > > As far as is legally proper, in the interest of the Domain Holders
> > > but also of the stability of the DNS, they should *be* secure. Any
> > > argument that Domain Names are not the registrant's property, to
> > > dispose or transfer as the registrant sees fit, serves to
> > > destabilize the DNS.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > --
> > This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> > Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> > ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> > Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> 
> --
> Any terms above that are not familiar to the reader may
> possibly be explained at:
> "WHAT IS": http://whatis.techtarget.com/
> GLOSSARY: http://www.icann.org/general/glossary.htm
> Archives of posted emails on various General Assembly
> mailing lists and other ICANN information can be found at:
> http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> 
> 

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2001 01:54:11 -0400
From: "L Gallegos" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Domain names as observed (was Tucows Response to   Cochet	 tiTransfer Letter)

Bottom line, for our registry anyway, is that as long as fees are 
paid, it takes a court order to revoke a domain - as long as we have 
our operations in the US.  I suppose that registries that are off-
shore can operate differently.  We work to protect registrants, not 
disenfranchise them.

Nite all.

Leah

On 29 Jul 2001, at 0:56, Jeff Williams wrote:

> Leah and all assembly members,
> 
> L Gallegos wrote:
> 
> > On 28 Jul 2001, at 21:27, William S. Lovell wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > L Gallegos wrote:
> > >
> > > > Joop, may I say once again that there are no "property" rights
> > > > in a domain name itself.  Rights in the use of the name are
> > > > conferred by the registrar/registrant agreement and that is
> > > > where a registrant should look prior to registering the domain. 
> > > > However, just because a domain name is not property, per se, it
> > > > does not mean that there are no rights in it.  Again, those
> > > > rights are determined by the registration agreement and can
> > > > differ from registry to registry.
> > > >
> > > > Leah
> > >
> > > I would have to disagree with this entirely.  To say that "rights
> > > in the use of the name are conferred by the registrar/registrant
> > > agreement" would imply that the registrar had rights to confer,
> > > which it does not. Rights to the use of the registrar's facilities
> > > are what are conferred by that agreement, without regard to the
> > > domain name itself which, if created ("conceived," "invented,"
> > > etc.) by the registrant, could only be the intellectual property
> > > of that registrant.   I realize, of course, that these agreements
> > > say otherwise, but it is fundamental to the law that one cannot
> > > convey what one does not own, so any portion of any document that
> > > pretends to say otherwise would be null and void on its face.  Too
> > > bad no one has the wherewithal (or the ***) to prove that.
> >
> > Since what you are contracting for is a registration (a service),
> > the registry/registrar can set conditions for the use and term of
> > that registration.
> 
>   No they can't entirely.  The use of any Domain Name and the content
> that may be a part of that use is strictly the "Domain" of the
> registrant under US law.
> 
> >  It is not ownership of the name itself in any case.  It
> > is a service provided under certain conditions.  Whether that
> > service can be cancelled for whatever reasons stated in the
> > agreement is dependent on that agreement.
> 
>   That agreement must meet in the US anyway, any and all legal
>   requirements
> as proscribed by the GATT agreements, the NAFTA trade accords, civil
> liberties statutes, as well as contract law.  ICANN's current
> registration agreements are currently under some pressure in several
> of these areas of law presently.  WIPO/ICANN's UDRp also has some
> serious flaws along these lines as well in a international scope.
> 
> >  Cancellation of the
> > service would amount to revokation of the use of the domain name.
> 
>   This is one of several reasons why we [INEGroup] are strong
> believers if a SROOTS and Shared registry system where no single
> registry or root structure could negatively impact ecommerce by way of
> Domain Name revocation under these potential circumstances from
> occurring.
> 
> >
> >
> > In any case, a registrant should not have to be concerned about
> > whether he will have the use of the domain.  Unless the law has been
> > broken in some way and and a court order is issued to revoke the use
> > of the name, the legitimate registrant would have the use of the
> > domain.
> >
> > A property manager for an apartment complex does not
> > necessarily own the complex, but has the rights to lease
> > apartments within that property.  The tenant does not own the
> > apartment, but does have whatever rights are conferred under the
> > lease agreement.  He may or may not be able to sublet the apartment,
> > sell, will or trade his rights in the lease contract, use it for
> > something other than his domicile, etc.  It would all depend on the
> > lease contract.  As long as the tenant continues to pay his "rent"
> > and/or fees and does not violate the terms of the lease agreement,
> > he has the right to enjoy the use of that apartment.
> >
> > I don't see a registration as anything different, really, except
> > that there is no physical property involved, but just a contract for
> > a service.
> >
> > Leah
> >
> > >
> > > IAAL; this is not legal advice but a scholarly observation.
> > >
> > > Bill Lovell
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On 29 Jul 2001, at 0:30, Joop Teernstra wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > At 22:37 27/07/2001 -0400, L Gallegos wrote:
> > > > > >   Registrants, IMO, should be able to feel
> > > > > >secure in the use of a registered domain.
> > > > >
> > > > > I am glad to hear you say that. :-)
> > > > > As far as is legally proper, in the interest of the Domain
> > > > > Holders but also of the stability of the DNS, they should *be*
> > > > > secure. Any argument that Domain Names are not the
> > > > > registrant's property, to dispose or transfer as the
> > > > > registrant sees fit, serves to destabilize the DNS.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> > > > Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> > > > ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> > > > Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> > >
> > > --
> > > Any terms above that are not familiar to the reader may
> > > possibly be explained at:
> > > "WHAT IS": http://whatis.techtarget.com/
> > > GLOSSARY: http://www.icann.org/general/glossary.htm
> > > Archives of posted emails on various General Assembly
> > > mailing lists and other ICANN information can be found at:
> > > http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> > >
> > >
> >
> > --
> > This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> > Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> > ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> > Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> 
> Regards,
> 
> --
> Jeffrey A. Williams
> Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 118k members strong!)
> CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
> Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
> E-Mail [email-masked]
> Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 214-244-4827
> Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
> 
> 

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2001 16:49:27 +1000
From: "Dassa" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Domain names as observed (was Tucows Response to   Cochet	tiTransfer Letter)

|> http://www.newsbytes.com/news/01/167543.html

Was recently touted as a source to support the claim domain names are a
form of property and have associated rights.

Unfortunately, it is doubtful if the original writer of the post to the GA
read the article as it clearly supports the case that domain names are NOT
property.

As with most things legal, it is a murky field, we must be guided by
precedents and all I have seen indicate domain names are not property.
Until such time domain names are given the status of property in the
courts, any arguments in this forum are unproductive.

Darryl (Dassa) Lynch.

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2001 17:58:36 +1000
From: "Dassa" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Domain names as observed (was Tucows Response to   Cochet	 tiTransfer Letter)

|> -----Original Message-----
|> From: Eric Dierker [mailto:[email-masked]]
|> Sent: Sunday, July 29, 2001 5:24 PM
|> To: [email-masked]
|> Cc: [email-masked]
|> Subject: Re: [ga] Domain names as observed (was Tucows Response to
|> Cochet tiTransfer Letter)
|>
|>
|> Dassa,
|>
|> This is a fundamental, flaw, we the GA get to declare what it
|> is, the courts only enforce it.  It is a property right and make no
mistake about it!
|>
|> Eric

I'm afraid Eric you are assuming too much power for the GA.  The GA can not
declare what a domain is or what rights are assigned to one.

For you to declare domain names have property rights does not make it true.
Especially where there is substantial evidence and precedents to indicate
otherwise.  We might wish it was otherwise but that doesn't make it a fact.

Darryl (Dassa) Lynch.

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2001 04:17:03 -0400
From: Sotiris Sotiropoulos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Domain names as observed (was Tucows Response to   Cochet	 tiTransfer Letter)

Dassa wrote:

> Unfortunately, it is doubtful if the original writer of the post to the GA
> read the article as it clearly supports the case that domain names are NOT
> property.

It does no such thing.  In point of fact, it is definitely another
precedent-setting example of courts finding for domains as PROPERTY... In this
particular case, it's just not the property of the original registrant due to
their "bad faith" intent.  After all, the article states:

"Harrods attorneys attempted to argue that they shouldn't be forced to
demonstrate "bad faith" in order to recover the names, but the judge rejected
that argument. Harrods won despite that setback since they were able to prove
bad faith on the part of Harrods (Buenos Aires) Ltd."

The telling statement: "the judge rejected that argument":  Harrod's had to
come up with the evidence to prove their rights had been wilfully violated;
whatever that evidence may have been, it was sufficient under the condition of
"bad faith" to forfeit entitlement of thedomain to the compainant.
Nonetheless, the implied meaning of the "bad faith" stipulation is to inhibit
monopolistic attempts to curtail use of a name(s) for established and
legitimate purposes.

> As with most things legal, it is a murky field, we must be guided by
> precedents and all I have seen indicate domain names are not property.
> Until such time domain names are given the status of property in the
> courts, any arguments in this forum are unproductive.

Darryl, would you mind producing the precedents you are referring to?

Sincerely,

Sotiris Sotiropoulos

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2001 04:47:03 -0400
From: Sotiris Sotiropoulos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Domain names as observed (was Tucows Response to   Cochet	  tiTransfer Letter)

Dassa wrote:

> |> -----Original Message-----
> |> From: Sotiris Sotiropoulos [mailto:[email-masked]]
> |> Sent: Sunday, July 29, 2001 6:17 PM
> |> To: [email-masked]
> |> Cc: [email-masked]
> |> Subject: Re: [ga] Domain names as observed (was Tucows Response
> |> to Cochet tiTransfer Letter)
> |
> |>
> |> It does no such thing.  In point of fact, it is definitely another
> |> precedent-setting example of courts finding for domains as
> |> PROPERTY... In this particular case, it's just not the property of the
> original
> |> registrant due to their "bad faith" intent.  After all, the article
> states:
>
> Sotiris, think about what you wrote above.  The court took all the domain
> names from the defendant.  How does that qualify this decision as
> supporting the idea that domain names are property.

Someone else proved a more genuine claim by proving the "bad faith" of the
defendant.  Despite what you may wish, or may not wish to say, Harrod's had to
prove what amounts to an identity theft.  It cannot be any more clear.  The
domains were taken from the defendant and AWARDED to Harrod's.  Harrod's was,
in effect, recovering its PROPERTY.  How as it Harrod's property?  By the
association that the original "bad faith" registration was proven to
represent.  It's quite simple actually.

> Can you cite any
> examples where known recognised property can be taken from the owner due to
> some evidence of "bad faith".

In cases of theft (i.e. fraud), which is what trademark law was instituted to
protect.

> The case clearly extends external rights to
> cover the domain names and does not convey any rights on domain names
> themselves.  The same as the UDRP does.

Just re-read this statement for a moment... "external rights"? To what? To
whom? and finally, why?

Sincerely,

Sotiris Sotiropoulos
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2001 05:23:15 -0400
From: Sotiris Sotiropoulos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Domain names as observed [correction]

Sotiris Sotiropoulos wrote:

> Dassa wrote:
> > Can you cite any
> > examples where known recognised property can be taken from the owner due to
> > some evidence of "bad faith".
>
> In cases of theft (i.e. fraud), which is what trademark law was instituted to
> protect.

Of course, my sentence was meant to read:

In cases of theft (i.e. fraud), which is what trademark law was instituted to
protect *against*.

Sincerely,

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2001 05:31:22 -0400
From: Sotiris Sotiropoulos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Domain names as observed (was Tucows Response to   Cochet    tiTransfer Letter)

"William X. Walsh" wrote:

> Hello Sotiris,
> >> Can you cite any
> >> examples where known recognised property can be taken from the owner due to
> >> some evidence of "bad faith".
>
> > In cases of theft (i.e. fraud), which is what trademark law was instituted to
> > protect.
>
> Wrong.  This is the biggest stretch I've seen on this list so far on
> this subject.
>
> The DNS is a naming service.  The defendant was using the service in a
> fashion which violated the trademark protections extended to the
> plaintiff under the law.  A trademark does not mean that the defendant
> "owns" everything that contains their string, there was no theft
> involved.

Fraud *is* a type of theft William.  Trademark law was instituted to protect
against FRAUD.

> Courts have already ruled on this Sotiris. While those decisions are
> not binding in every jurisdiction, they do set strong precedents.

Please produce a list of what you consider "strong precedents".

> The Harrods case does nothing to advance the concept of domain names
> being property.  Not by ANY reasonable stretch.

Forgive me for not ascribing to your specific standards of REASON, William.  All
I'm haring from you is the same thing over and over again.  Where are your
REASONINGS?  Please produce the evidence of which you speak.

> Get a real attorney to tell me otherwise, one who has actually READ
> the case, and has a basis in IP and domain law.

Unlike the both of us, huh William?

:-)

Sotiris Sotiropoulos

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2001 17:01:43 +1200
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Consumer/Registrant Protection Consitituency 

At 12:06 29/07/2001 +0800, erica wrote:

>NAME:
>If there is general agreement that we need a constituency whose job is to
>ensure that the interests of consumers of domain names (Registrants)
>interests are protected, then its a good idea to ensure that's reflected in
>the name:  ie. Lets call the proposed new constituency the
>Consumer/Registrants Protection Constituency (C/RPC)

Dear Erica,
Whilst I agree with some of your observations, I I have a problem  seeing 
Domain Name Registrants as consumers.
An Individual Registrant  does not register a Domain Name to consume it.
One registers it to own it (or to hold it, if you wish), and to build it up 
as an asset or an Internet presence.
Or perhaps to otherwise exercise rights normally associated with the 
ownership of an asset.

There is much more involved than simply protecting consumers against being 
ripped-off.
ICANN is being set up as the wielder of power over Internet presence or 
non-presence.

In order to make the constituency really representative in ICANN , one 
wants a constituency of the Holders/Owners themselves, as Individual Human 
beings (who as content providers have concerns way beyond those of mere 
consumers), not  as a constituency of "protectors" or organizations that 
purport to protect.
These, if truly non-commercial, should be represented in the NCDNHC.

For the IDNH, the challenge is the construction of membership driven 
institutions, that can truly scale.

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2001 21:05:21 +1000
From: "Dassa" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Domain names as observed [correction]

|> -----Original Message-----
|> From:  Behalf Of Sotiris Sotiropoulos
|> Sent: Sunday, July 29, 2001 7:23 PM
|> To: ga
|> Subject: Re: [ga] Domain names as observed [correction]
|>
|>
|> Sotiris Sotiropoulos wrote:
|>
|> > Dassa wrote:
|> > > Can you cite any
|> > > examples where known recognised property can be taken from  the
owner due to
|> > > some evidence of "bad faith".
|> >
|> > In cases of theft (i.e. fraud), which is what trademark law  was
instituted to protect.
|>
|> Of course, my sentence was meant to read:
|>
|> In cases of theft (i.e. fraud), which is what trademark law was
instituted to
|> protect *against*.

In the case quoted, the domain names were taken from a holder who had
trademarks similar to the domain names in question.  The decision was based
on bad faith and the supposed intention of the defendant.  In no way did it
amount to the decision conveying any property rights on domain names, in
fact the opposite as the claim was based on evidence dealing with external
matters to the domain names.  The fact the domain names were taken from
someone who held trademarks associated with the domain names and given to
another party clearly indicates that domain names have no intrinsic
property rights of their own.  You will notice that all claims against
holders of domain names involve external property rights, trademark, IP or
bad faith claims.

Theft is entirely different to fraud and fraud is entirely different to
trademark infringements.  It is only confusing the issue to claim they are
the same.

If domain names were indeed property as many claim, any attempts to lay
claim to them would involve specific claims directly relating to the domain
name and the ownership and not involve external claims of IP, trademark or
bad faith.  Much like others can not claim my car, any books I've written
or other property I own unless they can claim prior ownership etc.

Don't get me wrong, I would love it if domain names were actually property
in the sense yourself and others state they are.  Unfortunately, the facts
don't support that view.

I feel the debate on if they are or are not property is unrewarding for the
GA and a waste of time.  The courts are making those decisions.

Darryl (Dassa) Lynch.

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #639
************************