Who can still say that domain name registrants do not need a
Constituency of their own in the GNSO?
Joanna Lane wrote:
>"The long and steamy legal battle over who owns the internet address sex.com
>has finally come to an end. The US Supreme Court has rejected an appeal from
>cyber-squatter Stephen Cohen, who was claiming ownership of the domain name.
>The ruling is expected to set a precedent about the ownership of website
>"Verisign maintains that domain names are not legal property and as such it
>cannot be held accountable for giving it away. If it loses, as legal experts
>expect, Verisign would face a huge legal bill and fines of up to £100m."
>Full story at:
>This message was passed to you via the firstname.lastname@example.org list.
>Send mail to email@example.com to unsubscribe
>("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
>Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
"The science of jurisprudence regards the state and power as the
ancients regarded fire- namely, as something existing absolutely.
But for history, the state and power are merely phenomena, just as for
modern physics fire is not an element but a phenomenon.
From this fundamental difference between the view held by history
and that held by jurisprudence, it follows that jurisprudence can tell
minutely how in its opinion power should be constituted and what
power- existing immutably outside time- is, but to history's questions
about the meaning of the mutations of power in time it can answer
--Leo Tolstoy, "War and Peace"
This message was passed to you via the firstname.lastname@example.org list.
Send mail to email@example.com to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html