Re: [gnso-raa-b] Is there any revision to the US supreme court ruling of 2000 that "Internet domain names are a new form of intellectual property"?

["Michele Neylon :: Blacknight" <michele@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 20 Aug 2010, at 15:01, Sivasubramanian M wrote:
> 
> .us is a cctld
> 
> Of course I know this.

So why do  you seem so surprised that it's going to be governed by US national 
law?

In any case, discussing .us in the context of the RAA is pointless and just add 
confusion


> 
> 
> >  Even .com is a gTLD name in use worldwide, not merely in the US, so how 
> > does US courts rule for the whole world?
> 
> I don't think anyone said that they did .. unless you're saying that they did?
> 
> I didn't say anyone said so, nor did I say that they did.

So why did you make that comment??

> 
> 
> > I am a Registrant for isolatednetwork.com
> 
> Which is registered via an American registrar, so you're going to be bound by 
> US law ..
> 
> 
> > and I want to challenge the Domain Names Authority by arguing that this 
> > name is a) my property, or, at least,  b) a time bound right for me with 
> > the right of first refusal. I, as the Registrant and a citizen of another 
> > country am prone to argue that I am not bound by the rulings of the US 
> > Supreme Court. Even if it is argued that Verisign is the Registry for .com 
> > over which US Supreme Court has jurisdiction  and by virtue of the fact 
> > that my name is registered by Verisign, I am bound by this ruling, why am I 
> > bound by the same ruling for .asia or .music or .in or .tel? What if I ask 
> > my law firm to challenge the .in Registry in India and the .asia registry 
> > in an Asian court and manage to get a ruling that my .in and .asia names 
> > are my intellectual properties over which I have a time-bound right and the 
> > right of first refusal? Then we would be faced with a situation where .com 
> > names are not intellectual property, but .in and .asia and .tel names are.  
> > Or we have a situation where all domain names by individuals and 
> > corporations under US Supreme Court Jurisdiction not considered 
> > intellectual property, whereas all domain names by individuals and 
> > corporations under some non-US jurisdictions considered intellectual 
> > property.
> >
> > Any ruling about all domain names all over the world should come from an 
> > International Court.
> 
> No - you're completely missing what the guys have been talking about. You 
> asked about some US rulings - they answered. You've now made a leap from one 
> specific set of case law to some insane global thing - which makes zero sense 
> to me
> 
> Insane global thing? No doubt this is a global issue, but why would you call 
> this an 'insane global' thing ?  This is a group that examines Registrar 
> Accreditation Agreement, and at the heart of the RAA topic is the question of 
> domain ownership.  On domain ownership and domain name rights, US Courts have 
> ruled, and these rulings are cited as rulings over Domain Names, not as 
> rulings over Domain Names registered in the USA or as rulings over Domain 
> Names registered by US registrants, not even as rulings over domain Names 
> controlled by US business corporations. The rulings appeared universal, it 
> sounded like rulings over all domain names without being specific about 
> whether the names in question are ccTLDs are gTLDs. So I raised this question.


No - you're picking up the wrong end of the stick entirely

If you ask a bunch of Americans about X (doesn't matter what X is) they will 
answer you based on their experiences and in the case of any contracts etc., 
they will, naturally, cite US law

That is NOT global

That is an American interpreting an American contract as per the American 
courts previous rulings

You asked about a US registrar - and you got an answer from one of their senior 
staff

As I already said to you previously, though you seem to have either 
misunderstood it or ignored it, you are using a US registrar, so you are going 
to end up being bound by US laws....

The fact that you are not in the US is irrelevant and does not make it a 
"global issue"

If you had registered the domain with an Indian registrar and they were 
insisting on imposing a US court's decisions then it would be a different 
matter, but that does not appear to be the case so far



> 
> And this is quite pertinent to the topic of this working group.
> 
> Sivasubramanian M
>  
> 
> 
> > I am uncomfortable with the jurisdiction of the US Supreme Court over my 
> > domain names as a Registrant from another country,
> 
> So register domains with a registrar in your jurisdiction
> 
> > and I would be equally or more resistant to US Supreme Court's 
> > extra-territorial jurisdiction if I were a Reseller or a Registrar in any 
> > country other than the USA.
> 
> Don't mix the two up
> 
> A registrar is a contracted party - a reseller could be anything ..
> 
> We are a registrar in Ireland. While our legal counsel will examine US case 
> law we will always look to Irish and EU law, as we are an Irish company .. 
> Obviously if were sued in the US by a US registrant / registry we'd have to 
> deal with it there I guess, but that hasn't happened yet.
> 
> However a US based registrar CANNOT ignore the US courts as they ARE binding 
> on them
> 
> >
> >
> > It is valueless apart from the content or goodwill to which it is attached. 
> >  A domain name that is not a trademark entails only contract, not property 
> > rights.  Thus, a domain name registration is the product of a contract for 
> > services between the registrar and registrant.
> >
> >
> > 'Domain name registration is a product of a contract for services between 
> > the registrar and the registrant'?  The contract with the Registrar is a 
> > contract for intermediary services, in such a manner that the Registrar has 
> > NO authority over the domain name.
> >
> > Dorer v. Arel, 60 F. Supp. 2d 558, 561 (E.D. Va. 1999).  When the contract 
> > between a registrar and registrant expires or terminates, the domain name 
> > ceases to exist.
> >
> >
> > Property, on the other hand, does not cease to exist merely because 
> > services associated with the property come to an end.
> >
> >
> >             Because a domain name is a product of a contract for services, 
> > the disposition of the domain name is a function of the terms of the 
> > contract.  For instance, Network Solutions’ current Service Agreement with 
> > registrants provides:
> >
> > 10. TERMINATION.
> >
> > a. By You. You may terminate this Agreement upon at least thirty (30) days 
> > written notice to Network Solutions for any reason.
> >
> > b. By Us. We may terminate this Agreement or any part of the Network 
> > Solutions services at any time in the event you breach any obligation 
> > hereunder, fail to respond within ten (10) calendar days to an inquiry from 
> > us concerning the accuracy or completeness of the information referred to 
> > in Section 4 of this Agreement, if we determine in our sole discretion that 
> > you have violated the Network Solutions Acceptable Use Policy, which is 
> > located on our Website at http://www.networksolutions.com/legal/aup.jsp and 
> > is incorporated herein and made part of this Agreement by reference, or 
> > upon thirty (30) days prior written notice if we terminate or significantly 
> > alter a product or service offering.
> >
> >
> > A Registrar who has issues with a Registrant may terminate his contract for 
> > services to the Registrant, but a clause like this shouldn't accord the 
> > Registrar any power to take away the domain name from the Registrant. At 
> > worst, a Registry may have the right to recall a domain name from a 
> > Registrant, not a Registrar. Even for a Registry to recall a domain name, 
> > there must be a due process with ample room for the Registrant to challenge.
> 
> 
> Again - disagree
> 
> You're ignoring all sorts of abuses, scams, frauds etc.,
> 
> Applying your logic we'd have to extend all sorts of crazy "due process" to 
> scumbags who abuse the domain name system
> 
> And you're also forgetting, as registrants tend to do, that registrars end up 
> spending a stupid amount of money dealing with all sorts of crazy spurious 
> claims from 3rd parties in relation to domain names. (We were recently told 
> that we had to block all instances of $brand from being registered in domain 
> names OR used in email addresses! )
> 
> 
> 
> >
> >
> > Thus, Network Solutions has the power and authority to terminate its 
> > registration services, under some circumstances, as provided in its Service 
> > Agreement.
> >
> >
> > The language from the Network Solutions agreement you cited is more than 
> > ten years old and is very much out of date.
> >
> >
> > Thank you again for the response. As I have stated earlier this isn't about 
> > Network Solutions in particular.
> >
> > Sivasubramanian M
> >
> >
> > I hope this is helpful.
> >
> >
> >  Statton Hammock
> >  Sr. Director, Law, Policy & Business Affairs
> >
> > <image001.gif>
> >
> > P 703-668-5515  M 703-624-5031 www.networksolutions.com
> >
> >
> >
> > From: owner-gnso-raa-b@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-raa-b@xxxxxxxxx] On 
> > Behalf Of Sivasubramanian M
> > Sent: Thursday, August 19, 2010 4:34 PM
> > To: gnso-raa-b@xxxxxxxxx
> > Subject: [gnso-raa-b] Is there any revision to the US supreme court ruling 
> > of 2000 that "Internet domain names are a new form of intellectual 
> > property"?
> >
> >
> > Hello
> >
> >
> > There is a very old report at page 
> > http://news.cnet.com/2010-1071-281311.html that says that in the year 2000, 
> > the US supreme court reversed a 1999 circuit court ruling that "Internet 
> > domain names are a new form of intellectual property".
> >
> >
> > 1)  Is there any revision on this US supreme court ruling that domain names 
> > are not intellectual property ? Is ICANN's position on ownership of a 
> > domain name entirely governed by the US Supreme Court decision of 2000 or 
> > later, if revised?
> >
> >
> > 2) This report also says that Network Solutions revised its Domain 
> > Registration Agreement (based on the Supreme Court ruling ??? ) in Nov 1999 
> > which gave the company sweeping rights such as. The agreement states:
> >
> >
> > • NSI may terminate "domain name registration services" if the registrant 
> > uses them for "any improper purpose, as determined in our sole discretion." 
> > The term "improper" is left open for NSI to interpret.
> >
> >
> > Ten years later, in 2010, is this power to terminate a domain name with the 
> > Registrar, Registry or with ICANN ?
> >
> >
> > Sivasubramanian M
> > http://www.isocmadras.com
> > facebook: http://is.gd/x8Sh
> > LinkedIn: http://is.gd/x8U6
> > Twitter: http://is.gd/x8Vz
> >
> >
> 
> Mr Michele Neylon
> Blacknight Solutions
> Hosting & Colocation, Brand Protection
> ICANN Accredited Registrar
> http://www.blacknight.com/
> http://blog.blacknight.com/
> http://blacknight.mobi/
> http://mneylon.tel
> Intl. +353 (0) 59  9183072
> US: 213-233-1612
> UK: 0844 484 9361
> Locall: 1850 929 929
> Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090
> Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon
> 
> PS: Check out our latest offers on domains & hosting: http://domainoffers.me/
> -------------------------------
> Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty
> Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland  Company No.: 370845
> 
> 

Mr Michele Neylon
Blacknight Solutions
Hosting & Colocation, Brand Protection
ICANN Accredited Registrar
http://www.blacknight.com/
http://blog.blacknight.com/
http://blacknight.mobi/
http://mneylon.tel
Intl. +353 (0) 59  9183072
US: 213-233-1612 
UK: 0844 484 9361
Locall: 1850 929 929
Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090
Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon

PS: Check out our latest offers on domains & hosting: http://domainoffers.me/
-------------------------------
Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty
Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland  Company No.: 370845