[ga-full] Re: [ga] FW: An interesting dissent to sunrise provisions

[Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com>]

On Tue, Apr 18, 2000 at 07:54:22AM +0200, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
> At 12:36 14.04.2000 -0600, Michael wrote:
> >    But to return to the water law paradigm, doesn't it make sense to 
> > incorporate a
> >procedure in which someone holding domain space for 3 (or 5 or 7) years 
> >without
> >going on line or putting the domain space to work will have to forfeit their
> >rights?
> this was discussed during the WIPO Experts' meeting too (and, I'm sure, at 
> millions of other discussions).
> 
> The problem with requiring "use" is that the investment for setting up 
> something that looks like usage of the name is almost nil - the absolutely 
> cheapest is aliasing "www.<yourname>.com" to someone else's website, but 
> "domain parking" facilities are widely available too.
> 
> I sympathize - the Norwegian rules have a rule saying that a domain where 
> no listed nameserver is reachable and configured for the domain is recycled 
> after 3 months - but if the owner has just a slight interest in keeping it, 
> it is almost impossible (IMHO) to make a forfeit clause stick.

The UDRP has a "bad faith" clause, and "bad faith" is at LEAST as 
difficult to define as "use".  Moreover, it would be applied in exactly 
the same way as in the UDRP -- as an after the fact criteria to resolve 
disputes. 

> Apart from that, I liked the model!

It is the most interesting, freshest approach to the issue that has 
come up in a long time.  I find it very interesting, as well.

-- 
Kent Crispin                               "Do good, and you'll be
kent@songbird.com                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain
--
This message was passed to you via the ga-full@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html