Re: [ga] Domain names as observed (was Tucows Response to Cochet tiTransfer Letter)

[Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com>]

On Sun, Jul 29, 2001 at 12:54:46PM -0400, Joanna Lane wrote:
> on 7/29/01 1:07 AM, L Gallegos at jandl@jandl.com wrote:
> 
> > 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
> 
> Leah,
> 
> The difference is that the apartment rented by the tenant was not created by
> him in the first place.

Neither is the domain name.  "example.com" is useless, unless it is 
registered in a .com registry.

> OTOH, the Registrant may well create the Domain Name
> he is then being asked to rent. The fact that one cannot exploit a DN on the
> internet without first entering into a contract for services does not mean
> that entering into that contract is the defining moment of conception of
> "example.com". In all cases origination pre-exists registration, if only by
> a millisecond.

You are confused.  I just made up the string
"asdrieeavaseseravaserasevasereeravea34radaeada.com".  But it isn't a
domain name -- it's just a string of characters.  It isn't a domain name
*until it is registered*. 

> The process by which a registrant thinks up a new DN prior to registration
> is surely a creative process,

Correction.  Thinking up something that *might become a domain name* is
a creative process.  But it isn't really a domain name until it is
registered and functioning. 

> an original artistic and literary work. A real
> life example of that would be "bazoomer.com", which features as the product
> placement storyline in David Mammet's fictional film "State and Main" (BTW,
> an excellent movie). Another example is VeriSign's own "the-bug-reaper.com"
> commercial.  Neither of these domain names is active, and probably never
> will be,

Then they aren't really domain names.

 their purpose is simply to exist in an artistic and literary
> context as part of fictional work that is being exploited extensively in the
> public domain using other media - theatrical release, broadcast TV, DVD,
> Video etc. 
> 
> These examples, and others, may enter the public conscious without ever
> being accessible in the DNS roots or appearing on a single end user screen.
> Therefore, it's seems obvious to me that strictly speaking, it is possible
> (albeit not desireable) for a dotcom Domain name to exist and be exploited
> without any formal registrar service contract with VeriSign.

You are exploiting a string.  But you only have rights to the *domain
name* if you have some intellectual property rights that you develop for
the string -- eg, a TM.

-- 
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