It's a way to create a property interest in the common-law world, called 'proprietary estoppel'. Let's say I'm a farmer. I have someone who is a labourer. He works for me for many years for no, or minimal payment. This is because I say to him "don't worry, my friend, since I have no children, I'm leaving you the whole farm in my Will." After I die, it turns out I forgot to ever write the Will. So the whole farm will either go to very distant relatives of mine, or to the Queen. But because of the representation, and the reliance on it, property rights to own the farm could have been created over the farm in favour of the labourer. (But all the elements must be present -- that's a matter of the facts, not law). It's like legal magic, really! It's a bit of a shifting sands too, because a US court may address equitable right like s differently to an English court, and an Australian court could differ from both of them. But because of the common heritage, they are tributaries of the same river, and do 'mingle their waters'. Application of the concept is left as an exercise for the reader. On 22/05/16 17:29, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:
Dear Nigel, Being used to your ability to argue for any term, the so-called Invention of DNS (according to your analysis/description ) goes with individual/ individuals and not a country. By the way ,I dd not quite catch what did you mean by "/a representation coupled with reliance thereupon."/ Tks Kavous //
o
2016-05-22 18:25 GMT+02:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>>:
Dear Nigel, Being used to your ability to argue for any term, the so-called Invention of DNS (
2016-05-22 18:18 GMT+02:00 Nigel Roberts <nigel@channelisles.net <mailto:nigel@channelisles.net>>:
It's not a problem. I understood the intention.
The difference is that the DNS *WAS* invented, not discovered however.
And invention can certainly create property rights.
As -- in US and common-law countries -- a representation coupled with reliance thereupon.
On 22/05/16 16:16, Arasteh wrote:
Dear All Sorry for inattention using " invented" I correct it to be " discovered" Regards Kavouss
Sent from my iPhone
On 22 May 2016, at 15:48, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>>> wrote:
Dear All, I hesitate to comment on the letter sent but looking at the messages exchanged, I wish to briefly comment in an individual capacity ( A CCWG participant only ) as follows 1. The analysis made by the authors of the letter were made with some degree of partiality and with lack of full understanding of the process . 2. As for the issue of "DNS Property" the attention of the authors are drawn to the fact that , DNS like ORIBITAL/ SPECTRUM RESOURCES are natural resources and does not belong to anybody. It can be used by any applicant under certain Rule and procedure .Therefore there is no ownership on DNS at all. It is evident that the internet has been mostly initiated by and from a given country but it does not mean that such country is the owner of the DNS. While It belongs to no body, it belongs to everybody. The inventor of the electromagnetic waves and the countries in which the issue was developed has never ever claimed to be the owner of the spectrum . Kavouss
2016-05-22 13:35 GMT+02:00 Nigel Roberts <nigel@channelisles.net <mailto:nigel@channelisles.net> <mailto:nigel@channelisles.net <mailto:nigel@channelisles.net>>>:
I'm content to discuss it here - I was merely offering to take the discussion aside in case it was seen as off-topic (which is isn't, IMO, that much).
On 22/05/16 11:36, Dr Eberhard W Lisse wrote:
on Act.
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community