netzar writes "From a recent CircleID story: "In Kremen v. Cohen, a federal appellate court accepted the view that a domain name is "property" and that domain name registrars should be held liable for the conduct of third-parties when a third-party interferes with the property interests of a domain name registrant by stealing their domain name. What is remarkable about the decision is its far-reaching implications and its potentially severe impact upon domain name registrars.
Undoubtedly, there have been numerous claims that registrars were pilfering from individual domain name holders with impunity, and that domain name holders were clamoring for a legal remedy. In those instances, holding registrars directly liable for their illicit conduct is clearly sensible. The question remains, however, whether the court's ruling regarding registrar liability for the conduct of a third-party is a prudent and sensible response to domain name theft? I am doubtful..."
Note:
Personally, I think that while calling domain names "property" may be too broad-brushed, relying on contracts has its own problems--not least that contractual authority in this area is getting scarily tangled (witness the ICANN-VeriSign litigation). Still, this is a thoughtful piece, and well-written."