[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [ga] FW: An interesting dissent to sunrise provisions
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@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