Subject: Re: another's view on zone enum & on-line signing

From: Robert Elz <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2004 17:30:11 +0700

Date:        Thu, 23 Sep 2004 11:38:26 +1000
    From:        Mark Andrews <[email-masked]>
    Message-ID:  <[email-masked]>

  | 	http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/federal_ct/2004/1244.html

Thanks for the reference.    It is clear from that that zone files weren't
an issue at all (nothing in the events leading up to the case was in the
slightest bit interested in zone file contents) - just the whois database,
and Nominet's registry database.

It is also clear from this that as an authority on whether or not
copyright actually exists in (even those) databases (leaving aside the
zone file) this case is totally useless, as that question was conceded
by all parties - that is, no-one contested the issue of whether or not
copyright actually existed.   The judgement just repeats the statutary
requirements, and asserts (by agreement) that they're all satisfied.

I think that we're going to need another case sometime, where the issue
is actually debated, or quite a lot of cases where it is assumed (so that
it becomes obvious) before there's any finalisation of the issue.

kre

--
to unsubscribe send a message to [email-masked] with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/namedroppers/>

---

From: "Olaf M. Kolkman" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2004 12:12:14 +0100

Can we stop the discussing court cases. We are not lawyers.

--Olaf
  DNSEXT co-chair