| ▲ | giancarlostoro 6 hours ago |
| > After a long and expensive battle, news just dropped that Verisign is retracting its plan to terminate 22,000 domain names and email redirects. Although they will be closing new registrations for 3rd-level .name domains, all existing domains (including this website) and email redirects will remain indefinitely. This was what I figured SHOULD happen when they did this. Allow existing customers to keep renewing, but nobody new allowed, if a tld frees up over time, reclaim it completely and sell it off. What they were proposing should really be illegal... |
|
| ▲ | Spivak 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| For it to be illegal I think we would have to have much stronger digital ownership laws. I would certainly support them. But for now a domain you "own" is just an entry in someone else's ledger and control is only enforced by contract for big players willing to pay. |
| |
| ▲ | schoen 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | There is a Ninth Circuit decision that domain names are a form of property https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kremen_v._Cohen but it's tricky because the domain name registries and registrars have a kind of thicket of contracts nowadays that subordinates registrants' property interests to other rules and considerations. So I don't think a court would think that a modern-day domain name registrant has property rights in a domain name that supersede all of those contractual terms. Edit: my recollection is that Kremen v. Cohen interpreted the legal defaults that applied because Kremen registered the domain name in an era when Network Solutions didn't require registrants to agree to a contract that limited Network Solutions's liability and gave it various explicit rights and powers. I'm not a huge ICANN expert, but I think ICANN broadly thinks the status quo is preferable to one in which registrants had stronger, less equivocal property interests in names. | | |
| ▲ | otterley 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | The Wikipedia summary of the case suggests that the ruling was much more than it was. Courts tend to rule on narrow issues, as it did here. The question before the Court was not whether a domain name is a form of property. Both parties agreed that a domain name is a form of property; that wasn't in dispute. The Court did affirm their shared position in black letter law, though. Rather, the question before the Court was whether, as intangible property, a tort of conversion claim relating to the domain name could be made under California law. Previously, cases disagreed as to whether it could be recognized. The Court found that it could be. | | |
| |
| ▲ | falcor84 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Agreed, but I just wanted to say that essentially every single thing anyone owns is, and has been from the invention of tally marks on clay tablets, an entry in someone's ledger. | | |
| ▲ | stevage an hour ago | parent [-] | | Of all the thousands of things I own, as far as I know, only my car and my house exist in anyone else's ledger as belonging to me. Am I missing something? | | |
| ▲ | cowlevel 39 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | All of your property exists in a kind of implicit ledger that a court can reify when needed. If a court decides your RAM isn't yours, then t isn't. | |
| ▲ | Calazon an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | The money in your bank account? |
|
| |
| ▲ | bookofjoe 30 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Yes. Otherwise I'd be happy to give you a GREAT price on all the movies I've "bought" from Apple and Amazon as well as myriad Kindle Books. | |
| ▲ | mzajc 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | These domains wouldn't be worth a penny if they came with a disclaimer that they can be deregistered or even taken over at any point. With a bit of luck, somebody could snatch popular last name domains and set up a catch-all mailserver. | | |
| ▲ | not2b 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | People persist in "buying" digital movies e-books, and games despite the fact that they can disappear at any point, without warning, because the seller's license expired or they just feel like discontinuing the service. | |
| ▲ | schoen 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | They do have such a limitation, because of things like UDRP. It's just that there are maybe some forms of restriction on the processes by which domain names can be involuntarily transferred or seized. But it's a real possibility! |
|
|
|
| ▲ | 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| [deleted] |
|
| ▲ | echelon 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Now a "{first}.{second}.name" will be really awesome to own. This is essentially premium real estate now. For us nerds, anyway. Great job Neil and gang! |
| |
| ▲ | Macha 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Well anyone can buy a second.name if second isn't already registered, and then set up their own first. subdomain, so most visitors aren't going to know the difference in between grandfathered in first.second.name sites and people who just bought second level domains and created their own subdomain. | |
| ▲ | jareklupinski 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | if you're lucky, you can do something like first.sec.ond works for many polish people who own ski resorts :) | | |
|
|
| ▲ | 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| [deleted] |
|
| ▲ | DANmode 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| > What they were proposing should really be illegal... Where? |
| |
| ▲ | gsich 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | Everywhere. | | |
| ▲ | DANmode 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | Super reasonable proposal. | | |
| ▲ | colonwqbang 29 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | What a useless comment. The Berne Convention on copyright is ratified by "182 out of 195 countries". If I were to recite The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy in public almost anywhere in the world, I can be sued for it. Maybe we need a Reston Convention on the right not to have your domain arbitrarily seized and sold to someone else. | | |
| ▲ | DANmode 19 minutes ago | parent [-] | | I don’t even know where to start rebutting your comment. You can be sued for downloading NES ROMs, too. Make a point? PS The Copyright and IP thing is pretty unique, and is often held as an example of the US’ true power and influence to protect its corporate interests. |
| |
| ▲ | w-j-w 41 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | | [dead] |
|
|
|