DNSO Mailling lists archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Re: [ga] Critics say VeriSign still has...

On Tue, Apr 10, 2001 at 02:28:42PM -0700, gavin.stokes@autodesk.com wrote:
> That said, let's talk about the juvenile responses. 

Let's not.


> 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.

On the point of forbiding resale: tricky.  If I sell my business,
Songbird, the domain name would pretty much have to go with it, and it
isn't reasonable to forbid it.  Moreover, I think it would be really 
difficult to control.

Kent Crispin                               "Be good, and you will be
kent@songbird.com                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain
This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>