It appears that Domaining.com (an ICA professional member) has deleted my account with them for no legitimate reason. I can only surmise that this is in response to my decent and questioning of the policies and tactics used by the ICA. This is unfortunate but only further shows the lack of transparency by this organization which is supposed to represent “domain name owners”. Notice their slogan does not stat “all”.

ICA is a limited representation. The general domain owner populous only benefits from the trickle down left from what they do for themselves.

Time to go back to RSS feeds.

It is not surprising at all. What is disturbing is the use of public funds and a government organization to perpetuate this as some legitimate action.

It’s business as usual, eliminate the competition and “capitalize” on laws that can be interpreted and weaknesses in your opponents position. We see this case as noteworthy because the defendants are well enough monetized to put up a fight against this. Yet this sort of heavy handedness is happening everyday in America and in courts. It’s how the system has structured. If you’re not monetized then stay out of the court system.

The issue of property is just as important, if not more, in this case because if the domains are not property then jurisdiction doesn’t even matter because there is nothing to seize. At worst it would become a cease and desist of their activities Kentucky would consider in violation.

To be clear, ICA filed an amicus brief in this case, stating that it is not clear that domains are property. There have been decisions both that domains are property and that they are not. This fact is mentioned in our brief, but it is not the main basis for our request to dismiss the seizure order.

Not only is there not clear legislation or case law in the US regarding whether domain names are property, there is not a clear preference on this issue among domain owners. Truely, it depends upon the circumstance. Sometimes as in this case, it is not good for domains to be consider property “subject to seizure”, but in other cases it might be different.

The property issue is worthy of discussion, but takes away from the bigger issue in this case, which is jurisdiction. How can Kentucky seize a domain name and in effect close a business operating legally and regulated in its home jurisdiction? This is expecially disturbing considering that it seems to be done to protect an instate gambling site, TwinSpires.com, from competition.

[...] Have Our Customers’ DomainsWe Get It Award: DiplomaFrame.comSedo’s Domain Sales Pipeline is GrowingNetwork Solutions Fights for Domain Owners in KentuckyThe Weakest Security Link is YouDomain Name Bargain Hunting on eBayDomain Stocks PummeledThreat [...]

Freedom of speech is one thing; advertising the services or products of another is entirely different. If the advertisements go against laws or morals or ethics merely for the purpose of profit through PPC or other means, then that’s not protected by the first amendment. It would be irresponsible and damaging to the protections the First Amendment grants all of us to use that shield to such ends.

In some ways domains operate like property and in others they do not. It’s an argument that will take many more years and cases such as this to set the precedent. One minute the ICA supports domains as property and the next they don’t. They want it both ways depending on what suits them for the moment.

In the end (years)I believe domain names will become property but the way they currently function domains are not. Kentucky is wrong here. They’re operating like any other business in their attempt to use any means possible to stifle competition. That’s all this is about. Something else was going on there behind the scenes before we ever saw this case filed (agenda).