DNSO Mailling lists archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

RE: Re[2]: [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 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

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>