DNSO Mailling lists archives


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

RE: [nc-deletes] Minutes - Conference Call, November 15

Title: RE: [nc-deletes] Minutes - Conference Call, November 15

Wait and see what I propose - then you can criticise it (and if you don't I will assume you have taken excess painkillers and passed out).  I sort of picked up the general impression that you wouldn't be very keen on a system which forced the respondent to renew a domain name they no longer wanted.  I'm perceptive like that. 

The "renewal in bad faith" point has been tried a few times and I don't think it has ever succeeded.  Let me know if you've seen it succeed as I was thinking about running it in a case before there had been any decisions on it and decided it was probably a too much of a long shot.

Sorry to hear you are injured.  I suggest you turn off your computer as typing will not help a bad neck and domain name policy discussions will not help stress levels.


-----Original Message-----
From: John Berryhill [mailto:john@johnberryhill.com]
Sent: 20 November 2002 17:54
To: Jane Mutimear
Cc: nc-deletes@dnso.org
Subject: RE: [nc-deletes] Minutes - Conference Call, November 15

> Where in my response did I say that my proposal was going to be one
> which required the registrant to remain the owner against their
> wishes?

Consider my response to be a comment to the effect that I hope it is not one.

> Calm down.

I will take that under advisement.  I am awaiting diagnosis of a neck injury which has rendered me relatively immobile, in considerable pain, and probably grouchier than usual.

> If you have a domain which is coming up for renewal in
> 2-3 months but the client is very keen to resolve the problem, you
> would not advise them to wait for that length of time to see whether
> the domain was renewed, because if it is, then you are 2-3 months

Whether the client is "keen to resolve the problem" is not a DNS policy issue.  The registrant may be just as keen to see the domain name expire at the end of its term.  Whose expectations should matter more, from an objective policy standpoint?

If, in fact, the registrant renews the domain name after having received notice, then your case is stronger, since now you have a deliberate action taken under notice.  A competent attorney in this area might consider telling the client that, if such an attorney has any interest in serving the client effectively.

I have advised clients who have received threats over domain names near expiration to merely allow the domain names to expire.  I don't think your clients smell better than mine, or that their rightful expectations that the domain name will expire on time are invalidated by your clients' personal frustrations or psychological conditions.  "The client" is not always a trademark owner, and failing to appreciate the view from the other side is not a way to make policy that is objective or fair.

Turn it around.  What would you advise a domain registrant who is a few weeks away from expiration?  You do understand that there are registrars who do not permit transfers within weeks of the expiration date.  For example, itsyourdomain.com imposes a thirty-day cutoff, prior to expiration, for such transactions.  Are you going to advise the client to waste time and money explaining this to an attorney who does not understand the first thing about domain registration, when the resolution to the matter will occur with certainty and on schedule?

We're talking about an addressing system for a computer network, and not an anti-anxiety medication.

It would seem that someone should tell your hypothetical client to "calm down", since as you describe it, this "issue" arises from the impatience of people who are sorely in need of such advice, dispensed freely here.

The contents of this e-mail are intended for the named addressee only.
It contains information which may be confidential and which may also be privileged.
Unless you are the named addressee (or authorised to receive for the addressee) you may not copy or use it, or disclose it to anyone else. If you received it in error please notify us immediately and then destroy it. Further, we make every effort to keep our network free from viruses. However, you do need to verify that this email and any attachments are free of viruses as we can take no responsibility for any computer virus which might be transferred by way of this e-mail.
Please refer to http://www.twobirds.com/fsma.cfm for our regulatory position under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 of the United Kingdom.
A full list of partners is available on request.
Details of our offices are available from http://www.twobirds.com

This e-mail has been scanned for all viruses by Star Internet. The
service is powered by MessageLabs. For more information on a proactive
anti-virus service working around the clock, around the globe, visit:

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