[CCWG-ACCT] latest letter from Cruz et al FYI

[Nigel Roberts]

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 at gmail.com
> <mailto:kavouss.arasteh at 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 at channelisles.net
>     <mailto:nigel at 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 at gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>
>             <mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com
>             <mailto:kavouss.arasteh at 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 at channelisles.net <mailto:nigel at channelisles.net>
>                 <mailto:nigel at channelisles.net
>                 <mailto:nigel at 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 at icann.org
>                 <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
>                      <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>                 <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>>
>                 https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>
>
>
>