Bill Lovell wrote:
> At 09:23 AM 7/24/99 -0400, you wrote:
> >
> >
> >Bill Lovell wrote:
> >
> (...)
> put in use and avoided recapture. And therein, of course, lies the rub with
> respect to the data base that WE have created by all of our registrations
> of domain names: there was no "research" involved, and the proper NSI
> role is that of being a pass-through of the information, from all of us back
> to all of us. I don't think Bayh - Dole applies, partly because that data base
> is not a "research result" and partly because I doubt there would have been
> authority to cook up such a deal, whatever the contract says.
This is indeed an interesting question. Who owns the compilation when it is
consists of independent entries (assuming that the data entry is distinguishable
from the software that collects it)? And if the contractor doesn't own it because
it isn't the author, then the USG wouldn't either. Sounds like a joint work to
me. And any minute, NSI could write that into the registration agreement ("The
registrant hereby agrees that this data is a WFH contribution to a collective
work....") Also I believe that the two Senate database bills are marked up this
week. I suspect that a registry would have a much better return on an investment
made there than at Commerce.
> To find
> out we'd have to read both the contract itself and the statutory authority
> under which the contract was written -- this would not be the first time
> that the government tried to give away the farm, if indeed that is the case.
> If the contract were that stupidly written, then the government has the
> right and obligation to take the data anyway, and pay NSI for it under
> the "takings" clause, but what is NOT acceptable is that it shall be
> forever in the hands of NSI and we all suck up to it to keep the internet
> functioning.
Absolutely. If you do spend any time mucking around with the agreements, I'd
really like to hear your thoughts.
Diane Cabell
http://www.mama-tech.com
Fausett, Gaeta & Lund, LLP
Boston, MA
