DNOA vs ICA

[Spade]

So... I noticed that someone from the ICA is now posting at NP. Obviously, we hear quite a bit of the DNOA due to the fact that it has started thanks to the managers of NP.

My question is.... which organization is going to do the better job? It seems that both groups exist to perform the same function. Your thoughts on these groups?


For clarification, I am a member of the DNOA.

 

[Ben42]

I can't remember where or when but I think there was a court or political ruling sometime ago stating that domains were 'virtual' real estate or property with the registrant having rights and/or obligations.

Obligations...hmmm, like real-estate taxes based on the value of the name? Sounds like another good reason to not really own it!

 

[harkster]

Obligations...hmmm, like real-estate taxes based on the value of the name? Sounds like another good reason to not really own it!

Ok, knock off the obligations part -- now you got me going off to do some research. AFTER downloading around 4,000 images, processing as in resize/compress & create thumbs, upload and build the static stuff for a client.

Before you say it I have tried processing online and it is no easier/faster. Even wrote a bunch of PHP but ended up throwing it away.

 

[Dave_Z]

now you got me going off to do some research.

Currently the link I have isn't working. But this portion of the original decision
dismissing the claim against the original NSI might interest you:

"Historically, the tort of conversion was confined to tangible property. See 5 Witkin, Summary of California Law, Torts § 613 (9th ed.1988). However, California law does recognize "conversion of intangibles represented by documents, such as a bonds, notes, bills of exchange, stock certificates, and warehouse receipts." Id. Intangible property such as "goodwill of business, trade secrets, a newspaper route, or a laundry list of customers" are *1173 not subject to conversion. Id. In Berger v. Hanlon, 129 F.3d 505, 517 (9th Cir.1997) (citing Restatement (Second) of Torts, § 242 and comments), the Ninth Circuit noted that "[a]lthough the common law rule has been relaxed somewhat, and the tort may now reach the misappropriation of intangible rights customarily merged in or identified with some document, it has not yet been extended further."
[6] NSI contends that a domain name is a form of intangible property which can not serve as a basis for a conversion claim."

So NSI contended that a domain name is a form of intangible property. What
they didn't say (or anyone else subsequently) is what form it is or what rights
are inherent in them.

Regarding that portion from ICA quoted here about recognizing domain names
as private property, I wonder if they're prepared to pay property taxes, lose
them to a spouse in a divorce case, find them seized by creditors, deal with
in-laws in an inheritance dispute, and shoulder the extra costs passed on to
them when doing business with registrars. And that's just for those based in
the US, how about those outside?

On that aspect, I don't agree with ICA.