Re: [ga] Re: VeriSign Proposal a Done Deal??

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Joop and all assembly members,

Joop Teernstra wrote:

> 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.
>
> Chuck,
>
> 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
> books.
> 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.

  There are a couple of problems with you last comments/statement here
Joop.  Those being that any DN could be re-registered given that it
is trademarked if the rights to that trademark were granted, or sold
to the party wanting to re-register that DN that is different from the
original TM holder and DN holder.  And that the DN was abandon
(Not re-registered by the original registrant and TM holder) the
case would exist that the TM to this extent is also being abandon.
Hence allowing for an different party to re-register that same DN.

>
>
> But, as others have pointed out already, this was not the point that I was
> making.
>
> --Joop
>
> --
> 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

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 121k members/stakeholdes strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number:  972-244-3801 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208


--
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