RE: [ga] Domain Transfers

["L Gallegos" <jandl@jandl.com>]

On 14 Dec 2001, at 9:35, Jefsey Morfin wrote:

> The only true solution to this is to materialize the domain name holding
> through a "title" remitted to the registrant and that title to be
> universally accepted in any place and in any registration service as a
> proof of the holdership and of the right to change parameters.

So you are advocating a system whereby each registry must keep 
records for posterity on each registration, much the same way that 
records are kept for real estate.  This means title searches, additional 
personnel and elaborate systems.  It also could mean that there would 
be rights to survivorship, joint "ownership" and all that is implied in 
ownership, including taxes.  It would increase the price of having a 
domain tremendously because the costs to maintain it would rise 
dramatically.  It will also place great liability on the registry for use of 
the domains.  Once *sold* with ownership implied, the registry could not 
cancel or transfer if use of the domain broke the law or if there were an 
error in registration.  Transfer to another registry would involve a lot more 
than it does now because of title, which would have to be recognized 
internationally.  It would no longer be a service.  Keep in mind also, that 
no one *owns* language.

OTOH, there may be such registries.  It is my understanding that the 
.GOD registry confers ownership to domain name holders with a yearly 
maintenance fee.  It is the only one I am aware of.  This should be the 
decision of the TLD holder and stated in its charter or TOS.  It should 
not be mandated.  Registrants should be able to choose which TLD 
they prefer based on those statements.

There is also the issue of duplicate TLDs and therefore duplicate domain 
names.  Since ICANN has determined that they have the right to 
duplicate them, and it is now becoming common practice, several 
people could have rights to identical domains.  

Before anyone says that the so-called alt.TLDs are not legitimate and 
the ICANN TLD is the legitimate registry, check the recent Arizona 
court decision transferring three domains from one registrant to another 
within the ARNI .biz registry that is operated by The PacificRoot.  The 
court order says "all registries, all roots, all registrars."  
Arizona Superior Court: Case Number cv2001-018340

While the decision itself is a bad one for domain name holders, IMO 
(the defendant represented himself).  It certainly recognizes the 
legitimacy of the TLD and the registrations within it.

> 
> This is the main and best escrow service: the escrow at the concerned
> party. This what everyone does everywhere to demonstrate a property (the
> domain name or the use of the domain name depending on what you understand
> what a domain name is).
> 
> That title should actually be a smart card and will eventually be a smart
> card. However for practical operations the domain name must be acknowledge
> as a name of the Internet part of a domain belonging to someone.
> 

There are areas of the world that do not and may never have the 
technology for the use of *smart cards*.  

> 1. the name cannot be sold without the domain it qualifies (cf. France).
> End of cybersquatting. 

I don't understand what you mean here, Jefsey.  Sorry.  If you mean re-
selling domain names.  It would have to be made illegal to do so.  

2. the name cannot pass before the domain it
> qualifies. Domain names are domain life long. 

Whose life?  What happens with technology changes, changes in the 
DNS or *from* DNS?

3. the name is registered for
> free or for a fee once for all. 

What about registrant changes, transfers?  

4. usage fee may be collected making the
> name usable only when paid 

5. anyone may pay for it - advertising,
> charities, family, state, etc... 

That is the case now.  I can pay for your renewal if I wish.  NSI doesn't 
care who pays for it as long as it is paid for.  There was a post quite 
some time ago (I think on this list) where someone had paid for a 
renewal for an organization to keep it from lapsing or to get it back 
online because it had lapsed.

6. names are for user convenience. They
> must relate to the web site. 

Here, I totally disagree.  Domains are not necessarily used for websites 
and this has caused the unreasonable attitudes we now experience.  
The Internet is not just the web.  How would you relate qwerty.com or 
foobar.org or ichbin.net to a website topic?  How would you determine 
whether a name related to just hosts or email or to be used primarily for 
a scientific project with subdomains issued on a private network?  How 
does Amazon relate to books?  Who is to say that Amazon.TLD could 
not be used for large persons?

TM issues are not at the domain name level but
> at the domain level where the local laws apply. 

I still maintain that TM issues don't belong in the DNS simply because 
of uniqueness and the legal use of a mark by many others.

7. the only reason why a
> name may be reassigned is when it does not fit with the domain it leads to
> (like putting a road sign "New York" on the road to Tipperary). 

Again, domains are not just for websites.  I have domains that are used 
just for hosts or email with no websites.

This may
> only be decided by the users through a randomly chosen large jury of the
> concerned culture. 

8. there is no reason why the real/cover owner of a
> domain should disclose himself more than he wants. End of the WHOIS,
> welcome to the QuiEst ( http://quiest.net ). 

I do believe that the technical contact for the domain has to be publicly 
avialable for many obvious reasons.

9. the user is free to chose a
> name for his domain and to register it under the flag (TLD) he wants. 

Of course.

10.
> There are as many flags as the users may want and there should be no
> discrimination between flag (TLD) managers. However the interest of the
> user is that Flags (TLDs) provide them with secure, stable and attractive
> services. So TLD squatting should be treated through netiquette and market
> best practices as documented under the RT/BP ( http://boroon.net ).
> 

This is something the TLDA is working on regarding best practices.  
However, with the rampant duplication occurring now due to ICANN's 
having set the precedent, there are real issues regarding choice now.  
Technology will certainly be developed to work around the problem, and 
there are some answers now at browser level.  There should, indeed, be 
as many TLDs as the public wants, but there should also be either a 
charter or TOS to determine how that TLD is administered and a clear 
definition of a *TLD* for purposes of best practices and legitimacy.  If 
you are going to use the term "squatting" it must also be clearly defined.

Jefsey, if there are 20,000 TLDs, does it really matter if many of them 
are small or restricted (chartered)?  Must they be mnemonic?  Of 
course not.  Should there be more of a requirement than stable 
nameservers and a registry whether manual or automated?  With a 
plethera of TLDs, business practices will most assuredly determine their 
existence, like any other business.

Leah

> I know this is not what Verisign wants now, but this is what will happen on
> the long range. Verisign may help us getting it soon in cooperating or in
> us getting it back from the Govs long affter they setpped in and Verisign
> lost its business. Them to partly chose. The other part is for us and ccTLD
> to implement.
> 
> Jefsey
> 
> On 19:48 13/12/01, John Berryhill said:
> 
> > > Anyone who wants to change their Registrar should have to sign a
> > > document with detailed about, from and to information and this document
> > > should be notarized.
> >
> >...and every registrar should speak every language so that they can read
> >notarial certificates from any country?
> >
> >If the registrant is "Xiaolu Chin", what would you expect their name to
> >look like, let alone their signature, or the words on the notarial
> >certificate? How about "Abdullah Ajami" or "Vladislav Krietskova"?
> >
> >In any event, of what use is a notarial certificate in any jurisdiction
> >outside of the one in which it was issued, unless the notarial certificate
> >is legalized by the relevant consulate?
> >
> >Do you know what notaries in some countries cost?  Most people transfer
> >registrars to save money.  $35 per year for a domain name is *nothing*
> >next to notary fees in a lot of places.
> >
> >Registrants are much more secure with something along the lines of a
> >password-protected web interface than knowing that any teenager with a
> >printer, a pen, and a seal from the stationary store can take any domain
> >name they want.
> >
> > > Only the Technical or Administrative Contact should be allowed to
> > > instigate
> > > a change like this.
> >
> >And just how do you propose that anyone OTHER thant the registrant is
> >going to be able to bind the registrant to the terms of the receiving
> >registrar's domain name registration contract.  That's like saying the
> >only people who can sell my house should be my accountant and my plumber.
> >
> >

--
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