Re: [ga] Critics say VeriSign still has...
On Tue, Apr 10, 2001 at 02:28:42PM -0700, email@example.com wrote:
> That said, let's talk about the juvenile responses.
> 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
firstname.lastname@example.org lonesome." -- Mark Twain
This message was passed to you via the email@example.com list.
Send mail to firstname.lastname@example.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html