[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Another idea (Re: [wg-b] An idea?)
This is much better, but it breaks SRS. How do you figure that
registrars play in this?
My solution is;
1) Registrant registers name.
2) Name gets published in the registry's whois.
3) Markholder, who should be scanning whois anyway, spots the new
4) Markholder makes inquiry with registrant, within 180 days.
Here is where it gets tricky. The only known fact is the registration of
the name. No intended use is known at registration time, for an SLD,
unless the TLD has a specific charter. In short, there is no legal
grounds to claim infringment until intended use is known. In 180 days,
they have either declared intended use, or it is parked. The latter may
provide evidence for a cyber-squatting finding, depending on specifics.
However, infringement may be difficult to prove, without additional
5) If the markholder fears infringment, they can then file suit in
either the jurisdiction of the defendent, or that of the registry, or
both. They will so notify the registry of impending legal action.
6) The registry now puts the domain on special status that will prevent
the domain from going on hold, or being sold, unless specific court
orders are delivered, from the registry's jurisdiction, or direct
instruction is received from the registrant (possibly on court orders
from the registrant's juridiction, via the registrant). Call this
special status "contested" and show this in the whois data, including
7) The registry complies with all court and registrant issued orders,
with the sole exception of transfer of ownership. Transfer of ownership
is not allowed to occur, without permission of all interested parties,
until the legal issues are cleared. Note that, if the registrant is a
corporation then there is nothing preventing the corporation from being
sold, as the same legal entity still owns the domain name, evnthough the
entity itself may have different owners (this is meant as a speed-bump,
not a brick wall).
I think that many of you will recognise that, saving a few tweeks, this
is mostly current law. What's different is the time limits (ample) and
the presumption of guilt (none). What would upset some is that this
> -----Original Message-----
> From: email@example.com [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]On Behalf Of
> Harald Tveit Alvestrand
> Sent: Sunday, May 14, 2000 11:08 PM
> To: Wg-B@Dnso. Org
> Subject: Another idea (Re: [wg-b] An idea?)
> It seems to me that the summary of WG-B's report so far should be:
> "WG-B has been unable to reach even rough consensus on any proposal."
> I like Michael's last scheme much better than Sunrise+20, but that
> doesn't say all that much.
> But since we're into idea generation again, let's try another
> one: instead
> of making an arbiter friendly version, let's make a registry
> friendly version.
> In the land rush period, which is defined as the first 48
> hours (hey, this
> is the Internet!) after the opening of a new TLD, the
> following rules apply:
> - ALL requests are accepted, including duplicates.
> All registrants have to pay the registry fee for all
> registrations, whether
> they succeed in the end or not. No refunds.
> (what the registry charges is their business model, and
> not ICANN's concern)
> - At the end of the 48 hours, the registry will put all the
> names for which
> no conflict was found into the DNS, and make the TLD active.
> - The registry will email all registrants of conflicted
> domains with the
> information about who attempted to register that domain
> name, and ask them
> to confirm that they uphold their registration requests.
> - 48 hours later, it is assigned to the confirmed
> registration with the
> earliest initial timestamp.
> - Cheap to play for a registrant. The top loss is a normal
> registration fee.
> - Allows silly conflicts like 2 branches of the same company
> a domain to be detected and resolved easily
> - Allows anyone to easily withdraw in the face of massive
> opposing force
> without losing any more money
> - Allows direct contact between potentially conflicting
> registrants, making
> it possible to work out private settlements without
> involving the registry
> - Normal rules, including UDRP, apply within 96 hours of
> registry opening
> - Puts a ton of extra registration fees into the pockets of
> the registry :-)
> - Requires massive tweaks to registry software
> - Involves the registry directly with customers
> - Will cause massive nail-chewing in the first 96 hours after a TLD
> opens, while all registrants wait to see if they "got it"
> - Depends on the quality of the email infrastructure for notifications
> I'm still trying to figure out suggestions for a
> sunrise proposal.......
> Harald (who is not, and does not intend to become, a
> Harald Tveit Alvestrand, EDB Maxware, Norway