RE: [wg-review] Re: dndef, 9

[Roeland Meyer <rmeyer@mhsc.com>]

This is good. It would be strengthened if the registry offered a
hold-but-don't-publish option for a reduced maintenance fee. The theory may
be sound, getting a court to back it may be problematic.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Miles B. Whitener [mailto:mbw@i-theta.com]
> Sent: Monday, February 05, 2001 12:52 PM
> To: jo-uk@rcn.com; rmeyer@mhsc.com
> Cc: wg-review@dnso.org
> Subject: Re: [wg-review] Re: dndef, 9
> 
> 
>  If a court can order a registry/registrar to assign a name to a
> holder, then the registry should have a claim for payment against
> the name holder, unless the order is punitive against the
> registry in a way that bars payment.  That claim (for example, a
> demand for payment) would be pressed through the legal system,
> just as the transfer (and the subsequent claim against the
> registry) was.  In other words, by ordering the _permanent_
> transfer of the name, the court (in my opinion, only as a
> citizen, not a lawyer, which I'm not) implicitly ordered the new
> name holder to _in perpetuity_ for the maintenance of the name.
>  Unfortunately, at various times in history, courts have ordered
> transfers of assets that are inequitable.  Here is one possible
> case, that is, a registry ordered never to assign or reassign a
> certain name, and also ordered, explicitly or implicitly, to do
> so without compensation.   This would be a situation to be
> remedied by a higher court, a legislature (via either statutory
> or constitutional law), or a revolt.
>  But we need details here.  For all we know the order states
> clearly that it's only in force as long as Dell keeps its account
> in good standing per current DNS governance.
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Joanna Lane" <jo-uk@rcn.com>
> To: "Miles B. Whitener" <mbw@i-theta.com>; <rmeyer@mhsc.com>
> Cc: <wg-review@dnso.org>
> Sent: Monday, February 05, 2001 2:37 PM
> Subject: RE: [wg-review] Re: dndef, 9
> 
> 
> > Do the court's go so far as to distinguish between a domain
> name as created
> > and domain name as published?
> >
> > If so, in the circumstances that a new registrant defaults on
> renewal
> > payments for publishing a domain name that has been awarded to
> it by a
> > court, I don't think the Registry/ Registrar can just delete
> the domain name
> > and the registrants creative rights to it in the process.
> >
> > I imagine they would have an obligation to keep the option to
> publish open
> > permanently for the registrant who has demonstrated a
> legitimate right to it
> > and none other. The question is, what obligations is the new
> registrant
> > under to publish the name once it has been awarded, if any?
> >
> > If none, a seperation of rights to a domain name into creative
> and
> > publishing, seems to introduce a loophole which would allow a
> disreputable
> > person and company to legitimately cybersquat names without
> actually paying
> > anybody for them at all after the initial award had been made.
> >
> > Joanna
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Miles B. Whitener [mailto:mbw@i-theta.com]
> > Sent: Monday, February 05, 2001 2:07 PM
> > To: jo-uk@rcn.com
> > Cc: wg-review@dnso.org
> > Subject: Re: [wg-review] Re: dndef, 9
> >
> >
> > Anyway, I very much doubt that in the case mentioned there's
> any
> > ambiguity at all about whether payments have to continue to be
> > made on the name.  There's no way that the regular T&C were
> > bypassed.  Any two name holders can make a transfer any time
> they
> > like, and in so doing they will ascribe to the T&C of the
> > registrar and COM domain holder.  The only difference here
> would
> > be that the transfer is forced.
> >
> > From: "Miles B. Whitener" <mbw@i-theta.com>
> > > A sad outcome of judicial activism.
> > > It seems to me that an ordered transfer can't generally
> > interfere
> > > with the rights of the registrar.  So a permanent transfer
> > would
> > > have to be interpreted to mean "as long as the transferee
> > > maintains the domain".
> > > The registrar in this case would have to delete the domain,
> > else
> > > could be sued for unfair treatment (deleting other domains
> when
> > > payment is not made).
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Joanna Lane" <jo-uk@rcn.com>
> > To: "Miles B. Whitener" <mbw@i-theta.com>
> > Cc: <wg-review@dnso.org>
> > Sent: Monday, February 05, 2001 12:49 PM
> > Subject: RE: [wg-review] Re: dndef, 9
> >
> >
> > > I think Eric means what happens if a registrant, having been
> > awarded the
> > > name permanently, then declines to make any payments. The
> > registrars cannot
> > > force the domain name holder to pay in perpetuity, but
> equally,
> > cannot
> > > resell the name.
> > > Joanna
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: owner-wg-review@dnso.org
> > [mailto:owner-wg-review@dnso.org]On
> > > Behalf Of Miles B. Whitener
> > > Sent: Monday, February 05, 2001 1:23 PM
> > > To: Eric Dierker; Phil King
> > > Cc: wg-review@dnso.org
> > > Subject: Re: [wg-review] Re: dndef, 9
> > >
> > >
> > > > The Judge got the property right but those poor registrars.
> > > How can they charge
> > > > for renewals if the judge orders it permanently
> transferred?
> > >
> > > When you transfer a domain, the new domain holder pays
> renewal
> > > charges.
> > > Haven't you ever transferred a domain?
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > This message was passed to you via the wg-review@dnso.org
> list.
> > > Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> > > ("unsubscribe wg-review" in the body of the message).
> > > Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> > >
> > >
> >
> 
--
This message was passed to you via the wg-review@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe wg-review" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html