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