RE: [nc-transfer] Re: [ga] WLS Questions

[Gary Osbourne <gro@direct.ca>]

At 09:49 AM 14/06/02 -0400, Safran, David wrote:
>If a similar position is consistently taken by UDRP arbitrators,
>WLS cybersquatters should have no greater success than ab initio 
>cybersquatters.

See my article on ICANNWatch here:
http://www.icannwatch.org/article.php?sid=548
for some additional examples of dropjackers who lost UDRP
decisions. There have been some additional cases since,
from memory only one of them sided with the Respondent.

However, having to shell out greater than $1,000 for the
ruling and having to have one's formerly trafficed site
serving up probably unrelated, and quite possibly
offensive, material for a few months in the meantime, or
having email intended for certain eyes winding up in front
of others, it seems to me there is far greater incentive
for the previous name holder to just pay off the
dropjacker/cybersquatter than there is in the case of a
cybersquatter using a newly registered domain.

>This case also points out the real need for a grace period...

As I worried in the above article, it seems the grace period
will come with an additional charge:
http://www.icann.org/bucharest/redemption-topic.htm
if these registry-registrar representatives (and all the reps
of this technical steering group represent registries) have
their way. This strikes me as not much different than the WLS,
or extortion. Particularily considering that this steering group
(while ostensibly technical, if it is dealing with $ charges,
why aren't other interests represented?) proposes that the ability
of a registrant to move to a different registrar (even if it was
the registrar's fault that the name was dropped in the first place)
be curtailed until some point in the future, for technical reasons
of course. -g

--
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