re: Network Solutions - Virginia case

   The legal case which resulted in the article that gave rise to this
discussion is a decision by the Virginia Supreme Court. As a Virginia
attorney, I would urge you to read the case itself and the factual context
as I believe Network Solutions is being unfairly castigated in this
instance.  The case itself is available on line at
http://www.courts.state.va.us/txtops/1991168.txt

The case arose in the context of Network Solution's seeking to avoid being
subjected to a Virginia creditor's rights collection procedure known as
garnishment.  In that context, Network Solutions position is
reasonable....they simply don't want to find themselves being subject to
legal service of a "garnishment" and the cumbersome procedures and
administrative cost that entails anytime a domain name registrant becomes
subject to legal action by a creditor.  Any of you who have ever had an
employee whose wages were subject to garnishment should sympathize with this
burden.   If they (or any other domain name registrant in any state) were
subject to this procedure, the cost for "domain name registration" would
certainly rise significantly, with the increased cost ultimately inuring to
the benefit of lawyers engaged to defend the domain name registrars such as
Network Solutions (of course being a lawyer I might selfishly observe that
an across the board rise in cost for the benefit of the legal profession
might not be a bad thing :)  ) .  If you read the case itself, Network
Solutions did not itself contest that the registrants had a property right.

Network Solution, and every other registrar of domain names in the .com,
.org, and.net TLDs now must enter into a Registrar Accreditation Agreement
with ICANN  (see http://www.icann.org/nsi/icann-raa-04nov99.htm ) under
which they acquire a license to register names in the master ICANN database
(which associated various domain names with IP addresses.  What Network
Solutions can do is restricted by this, and one of the requirements is a
requirement that domain name registrants be allowed to transfer to other
registrants.  Thus the "concern' that Network Solutions will all of a sudden
"assert ownership" of a popular domain name is of no validity in my opinion.
ICANN itself is the governing body for internet names and its structure,
rules and governance is very much an evolving picture.  Every reader of this
list should visit the ICANN site ( http://www.icann.org/ ) become an at
large member and contribute to the ongoing internet governance dialogue by
offering comments and suggestions as they float proposed rules.  As with
most every governmental regulatory process, the people enacting the
regulations cannot consider points of view unless express to them.

As for the particulars of the Virginia case, be assured that Virginia's
lawmakers and business constituencies takes Virginia's role as the epicenter
of the internet very seriously (over half of all internet traffic flows thru
Virginia) and if a Virginia court case were to pose a threat to orderly
conduct of internet business, many businesses and attorneys, including
myself, would mount a vigorous campaign to have the appropriate law amended.
I don't think the case at hand creates any such risk.

Bob Webb
Reed Smith Hazel & Thomas LLP
8251 Greensboro Drive, Suite 1100
McLean, VA
bobwebb(at)webbcounsel.com
www.webbcounsel.com
www.rssm.com

HTML: hwg-business mailing list archives, maintained by Webmasters @ IWA