RE: [ga] Critics say VeriSign still has...
> -----Original Message-----
> From: firstname.lastname@example.org [mailto:email@example.com]On Behalf Of Kent
> Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2001 2:28 PM
> To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Subject: Re: [ga] Critics say VeriSign still has...
> > like ICECREAM.COM, or LEATHERCARE.COM in there. I typed a few into my
> > browser; some worked, and some didn't. And I still say, use it or lose
> > it. They should lose any of them that they don't use, but admittedly
> > this may be impossible to enforce.
> The most interesting and original post in a long time on this topic was
> made by, I think Michael McNulty(?), discussing the similarities between
> concerning water rights in arizona and rights concerning domain names.
> Water rights have a "use it or lose it" character -- if you don't use
> the water that flows through your property, you obviously lose it.
> It isn't so obvious that you lose the *right* to use it, but if the
> person downstream does start to use it, then *they* develop a right to
> the water that flows through *your* property.
> The basic point of Mr McNulty's post, I believe, was that there is
> indeed a well-developed body of law that operates on a "use it or lose
> it" basis, and that it might be profitably studied.
If I register a vehicle for use on the road and never drive it, as long as I
pay my registration fee, I retain the right to drive the car at any time. I
also have the right to sell my car at any time. Should we have a law that
bans "carsquatting"? IMHO, the answer is no.
This message was passed to you via the email@example.com list.
Send mail to firstname.lastname@example.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html