Re: [ga] Help with research into domain reregistration - submit examples of unrelated reregistrations

[George Kirikos <gkirikos@yahoo.com>]

Hello,

--- Ben Edelman <edelman@law.harvard.edu> wrote:
> Hence my request to members of this list: If you know of examples of
> domains
> that have been reregistered after expiration, and subsequently used

Not all of the domains fit your requirements, but you can get a list to
start with from the SnapNames.com list of successful SnapBacks. They
removed it from their website once debate over WLS began (too many
examples of domains that didn't fit the Verisign propaganda that "WLS
is a good thing"), however you can get an older copy from:

http://web.archive.org/web/20011007192350/www.snapnames.com/success.html

Others might have archived more recent copies of the "Success" list,
and I'd encourage them to forward them for the research. 

A more recent list of the "Hot 100" was previously discussed in the
post at:

http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg00085.html

(and subsequent posts in the DNSO GA mailing list) and links to that
list of 100 names were provided there for just these kinds of academic
reasons.

Using tools like Alexa's "Wayback Machine" at www.archive.org you
should be able to check how the domain names were before and after the
names were re-registered.

In the response to question B.17 of the WLS questions at:

http://www.verisign-grs.com/wls_responses.pdf

Verisign refused to provide much help in defining what is "abusive
speculation", but did seem to suggest that "porn-napping" is one such
example. I think a stronger definition would involve cases that would
lose in a UDRP case (i.e. involving trademark abuse) -- some cases
might have gone through the UDRP process, and one can use the search
tools at:

http://www.icann.org/udrp/

to find them. I'd be curious to know how many of the names on the
SnapNames list fit either definition, or your own definition. I'd
suspect that it's a higher percentage than that of professional domain
developers who use competing expired name services such as eNom's drop
club or NameWinner, as they tend to shy away from names that involve
trademarks. As you can see from NameWinner's high profile names at:

http://www.namewinner.com/winners_circle.php

most of them do not involve trademarks. The same for NicGenie's public
list at:

http://www.nicgenie.com/winners.asp

I think your research results and those of others, once available
(perhaps in a few months?) will be useful inputs once ICANN opens up
the WLS proposal for public comment. Then, after an appropriate period
of debate within ICANN and its constituencies (I don't believe much has
been heard from the IP and Business constituencies yet), we can attempt
to arrive at a consensus solution to the problem that builds upon and
modifies/adapts the WLS proposal into something everyone would be happy
with. Given the many current problems that make WLS inadvisable (e.g.
no firm policies on the release of expired names by registrars; Network
Solutions' failure to publish expiration dates for many domain names;
anti-trust aspects of the proposal, total lack of consensus, etc.),
having it sent back to the DNSO for further review and comment is
likely to be ICANN's best response to Verisign's proposal.

Sincerely,

George Kirikos
http://www.kirikos.com/

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - online filing with TurboTax
http://taxes.yahoo.com/
--
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