Return to tldapps Forum - Message Thread - FAQ

Username: jimzangaro
Date/Time: Thu, November 2, 2000 at 6:15 PM GMT
Browser: Microsoft Internet Explorer V4.01 using Windows 95
Score: 5
Subject: Dot Law Application


With the caveat that I have not read any other comments, I offer the following:

I briefly reviewed the website and ICANN application and I find this to be a wonderful concept, which will undoubtedly prove an invaluable resource. 

I do have some comments as to the presentation and content of the site:


1.  Whilst I understand the audience is primarly composed of legal professionals, I was a little put off by some of the language, at first instance (and first impression!) on the home page, and later thoughout the document.  Does one really need to use words like "fractionated" to describe the current state of the internet and "topography" to describe a simple diagram?  Mainly, it comes across as, at best, elitist.  Whatever happened to the "plain-speak" movement?

2.  The reference on the home page to the ICANN application does not make clear that the link is to the actual ICANN application for .Law(if, in fact, that is where the link leads!  The red link could simply read: ICANN application for .Law or .Law's ICANN application)


1.  I was struck by the absence of discussion/coverage on the participation/role of in-house corp. counsel. 

2.  Exhibit C in the ICANN application makes reference to dot law LLC, when all other references are to dot law Inc.  Are there two business entities or is the LLC reference a mistake?

3.  The proposed .Law concept may have ramifications beyond the intentions of .Law's developers and participants.  For example, I'm left to wonder how the enhanced security system will impact the issues around email and legal privileges (attorney-client, attorney work product). For example, attorney's or entities who opt out of .Law (e.g., sole proprietors or small orgs may not want to incur the expense of registering, or may not have the technical expertise (which some of us may take for granted)) may later discover that their confidential emails are not privileged because a "safer" mode of transmittal was available? 

The site, already covering the "Benefits" to the public and professionals, may further serve by discussing potential negative ramifications.  This would open up further dialog and no doubt assist in the long-term development of the project by raising issues before such issues derail or encumber the venture.

Message Thread:

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy