W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > June 2007

Re: What if an URI also is a URL

From: Hammond, Tony <t.hammond@nature.com>
Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2007 09:54:17 +0100
To: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
CC: SWIG <semantic-web@w3.org>
Message-ID: <C28ED7C9.2B26%t.hammond@nature.com>

> No matter what ICANN tells people, I think it's safe to say that domain
> names are, essentially, property.

So, we just forget about ICANN then?
 
> Can you suggest a plausible scenario where domain names in which there
> is a great deal of investment (amazon.com, google.com, ebay.com,
> ibm.com, microsoft.com, mozilla.org, w3.org, wikipedia.org, irs.gov,
> whitehouse.gov, house.gov, etc, etc) could be treated as significantly
> different from property?   Do you think somehow smaller domains should
> be governed by a different legal theory?

Well, no I don't. But then the current state of correctional terms in
California comes to mind. ;)

> <snip/>
> 
> It would be nice if ICANN would be more clear about this, but I don't
> particularly worry about it because I think if they attempted to act in
> a way which significantly contradicted this understanding, they would be
> overruled by more powerful segments of society.

That sounds ominous. "More powerful segments of society"? People or
organizations?

Tony



On 7/6/07 16:46, "Sandro Hawke" <sandro@w3.org> wrote:

> 
> "Hammond, Tony" <t.hammond@nature.com> writes:
>> 
>> "This document hereby declares, establishes and records the fact that the
>> URI http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes/PatHayes is owned by Pat Hayes and is
>> intended by Pat Hayes to rigidly denote himself, ..."
>> 
>> Yes, very nice. But is it strictly legal? ;)
> 
> No, but for different reasons than you suggest.
> 
> I'd say Pat's statements are problematic because they contradict
> relevant IETF and W3C specifications.  He is, essentially, acting like
> Emperor Norton [1], proclaiming things which are, in contrast to social
> consensus, simply not true.
> 
>> See this
>> 
>>     http://www.icann.org/faq/
>> 
>>     Q How long does a [DNS] registration last? Can it be renewed?
>> 
>>     A Each registrar has the flexibility to offer initial and renewal
>> registrations in one-year increments, provided that the maximum remaining
>> unexpired term shall not exceed ten years.
>> 
>> Maybe I'm missing something but I was not aware that DNS names were "owned".
>> Contrast also that maximum period of registration with the lifetime of the
>> Web.
> 
> No matter what ICANN tells people, I think it's safe to say that domain
> names are, essentially, property.
> 
> Can you suggest a plausible scenario where domain names in which there
> is a great deal of investment (amazon.com, google.com, ebay.com,
> ibm.com, microsoft.com, mozilla.org, w3.org, wikipedia.org, irs.gov,
> whitehouse.gov, house.gov, etc, etc) could be treated as significantly
> different from property?   Do you think somehow smaller domains should
> be governed by a different legal theory?
> 
> Of course, the laws concerning various types of property are incredibly
> complicated and vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.  But still, my
> point is that people have a general sense of what property is, and that
> applies to domain names.
> 
> (Note that people do get their property taken away from them, for all
> sorts of reasons, from time to time.  Sometimes they have their property
> stolen.  Sometimes someone uses the law in a way which seems offensive
> to common sensibility to take away someone else's property.  That
> doesn't change the fact that it was property.)
> 
> It would be nice if ICANN would be more clear about this, but I don't
> particularly worry about it because I think if they attempted to act in
> a way which significantly contradicted this understanding, they would be
> overruled by more powerful segments of society.
> 
>     -- Sandro
> 
> [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joshua_A._Norton

********************************************************************************   
DISCLAIMER: This e-mail is confidential and should not be used by anyone who is
not the original intended recipient. If you have received this e-mail in error
please inform the sender and delete it from your mailbox or any other storage
mechanism. Neither Macmillan Publishers Limited nor any of its agents accept
liability for any statements made which are clearly the sender's own and not
expressly made on behalf of Macmillan Publishers Limited or one of its agents.
Please note that neither Macmillan Publishers Limited nor any of its agents
accept any responsibility for viruses that may be contained in this e-mail or
its attachments and it is your responsibility to scan the e-mail and 
attachments (if any). No contracts may be concluded on behalf of Macmillan 
Publishers Limited or its agents by means of e-mail communication. Macmillan 
Publishers Limited Registered in England and Wales with registered number 785998 
Registered Office Brunel Road, Houndmills, Basingstoke RG21 6XS   
********************************************************************************
Received on Friday, 8 June 2007 08:54:30 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 07:41:57 UTC