RE: Re: [ga] Re: VeriSign Proposal a Done Deal??
How would you answer the question I asked? For a re-registration of a
released name, is the permission of the previous registrant needed?
On a different note, let me try an analogy. Is it okay for a landlord
to have a waiting list for a house in case the current rentors do not
renew their lease?
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joop Teernstra [mailto:email@example.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2002 1:04 AM
> To: Gomes, Chuck; 'firstname.lastname@example.org'; Gomes, Chuck
> Cc: email@example.com
> Subject: RE: Re: [ga] Re: VeriSign Proposal a Done Deal??
> At 15:21 7/01/02, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
> >So you would also say that his permission is needed for a
> >re-registration of his name after he deletes it, is that
> correct? There
> >is no difference, that is if you care about logic.
> You need not be surprised about my nuanced position on DN ownership.
> I do hold, and this does not need to threaten Verisign's
> business model,
> that Domain Names are Registrants' property, just like long
> term leases on
> land are (economically) property and can be assets or
> liabilities in the
> It may be a matter of semantics, but people and companies
> speak of "owning"
> such leases or similar contractual rights.
> There is also the issue of the intellectual property vested
> in an original
> Domain Name, especially if such a name is also trademarked.
> So, to take your extreme example, yes, I can imagine cases where your
> company, or a registrar, would not be at liberty to
> re-register a name to a
> third party, without opening itself to charges of
> contributory infringement.
> This has not been tested in court, but be prepared that some
> day, in the
> case of a small company that has been "sold" the same
> registrations in
> .com, .net, .org, .tv, .cc, .biz, .info, etc. and that wants
> to prune its
> yearly outgoings a little, may well elect to put a registrar
> or registry on
> notice that the name is trademarked and cannot be
> re-registered to any
> third party until its TM rights would expire.
> But, as others have pointed out already, this was not the
> point that I was