Re[4]: [ga] Registrars Draft: Transfers

[Jefsey Morfin <jefsey@wanadoo.fr>]

Dear Joanna and WXW,
all this shows the oddity of the US legal system and the need for the UDRP 
WG to start making difference between USDRP and other DRPs. There will 
never be ccTLD DRP established if we try to force one of the DRPs (the US 
one) as a common basic reference. I would therefore suggest to the WG to 
take advantage from the UDRP experience to publish a "DRP generation guide" 
independent from local legal oddities. An to work on the DRP principles and 
arechitecture.

This also shows the oddity of the archaic NSI approach that some ccTLD have 
corrected but the ICANN contract strategy still enforces at new gTLDs as 
part of its mission creep: that the name of something may be transferred 
without the transferring the concerned thing. As if Joanna was selling me 
her name or WXW his shadow.

I understand that people may want to make money on everything, but this has 
to be consistent. The anticybersquatting act is inept: rather than 
regulating cybersquatting, it should have forbidden DN resell as does the 
AFNIC for example (there are no cybersquatting case in .fr).

May be Peter could tell us how many ccTLD forbid DN transfers. Sometime you 
have to learn from others.

Jefsey

On 08:45 22/09/01, William X Walsh said:
>Friday, Friday, September 21, 2001, 1:20:49 PM, Joanna Lane wrote:
>
> > Hello William,
> > on 9/20/01 10:41 PM, William X Walsh at william@userfriendly.com wrote:
>
> >> Thursday, Thursday, September 20, 2001, 1:44:07 PM, Joanna Lane wrote:
> >>
> >>> Why does the Losing Registrar need to know whether the Domain is in a 
> UDRP
> >>> situation, or more important, whether the Registered Name Holder is 
> pending
> >>> bankrupcy? Surely, as long as the Losing Registrar's bills are paid, 
> and the
> >>> Domain will still be subject to the same UDRP procedures whoever the 
> gaining
> >>> Registrar may be, it's none of their business? It seems to me another 
> reason
> >>> for delay, also an intrusion of privacy into a Registrant's personal
> >>> affairs. Anyway, how on earth can a Registrar check whether a foreign
> >>> national is subject to a pending bankrupcy?
> >>
> >> These parts of the "rules" are not new, they are in the existing
> >> policies as well.  It provides for a reason why the losing registrar
> >> may deny a transfer, not that they are obligated to do so.
> >>
> >> Remember, the UDRP provides that someone filing legal actin may do so
> >> in the jurisdiction of the registrar, so a change of registrars during
> >> a UDRP proceeding would change the entire dynamics of the process.
> >> (By the way, I strongly disagree with that provision of the UDRP).
>
> > I understand that, but it's no different from a business changing its
> > registered office while involved in legal proceedings, which can result in
> > change of jurisdiction, and where I come from, that's not illegal. UDRP is
> > under review and it may be better to reword this agreement to be less
> > specific, stating a requirement to be consistent with UDRP rules, whatever
> > they may be. (IANAL). A domain name is either in UDRP or it is not, and
> > fairly easily discernable, so although I do not agree with compounding UDRP
> > errors in this way, it is not something that the Losing Registrar can turn
> > to advantage at whim. That is not the case for the Bankrupcy clause. The
> > bankrupcy clause is onerous on the Registrant. I have yet to receive any
> > answer from the Regisrar community to my question: how can a Registrar 
> check
> > whether a foreign national is subject to a pending bankrupcy? If one is
> > looking for an excuse to deny transfer, this is it, and I thought the whole
> > point of redoing these Registrar Agreements was to avoid exactly that.
>
>They don't have to check, Joanna.  The agreement places no obligation
>for them to do that.  But, let's say that the court has notified the
>registrar the company is in bankruptcy, and that the domain name is
>being considered as one of the assets to pay off the debts of the
>company.  Transfer of the domain name may make it difficult, or
>impossible, to recover the domain name, again because of
>jurisdictional changes.
>
>The provision doesn't require the registrar to deny, it provides it as
>one of a list of valid reasons a registrar can use.  The list is not
>exhaustive either, presumably any legal dispute regarding a domain
>name would be under the same kind of sufficient grounds.  A court may
>hold that the registrar who is informed of the case, and permits a
>domain transfer to another registrar anyway, acted negligently.  This
>provides a way for registrars concerned about that to use that as a
>permissible excuse to deny the transfer.
>
>We can argue if it is the right thing to do, and I'd probably agree
>with you.  But this battle is not about repairing these parts of the
>policy, and if you try and turn this into a complete revamp, it makes
>accomplishing the immediate goal more difficult, perhaps impossible.
>
>So those issues would be resolvable in future proceedings to flesh out
>the full scope of the policies surrounding registrar transfers. Right
>now, the issue of auto Nak is much more important, and needs to be the
>focus of the current discussion.
>
>--
>Best regards,
>William X Walsh <william@userfriendly.com>
>Userfriendly.com Domains
>The most advanced domain lookup tool on the net
>DNS Services from $1.65/mo
>
>--
>This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
>Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
>("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
>Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

--
This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html