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

["Safran, David" <DSafran@nixonpeabody.com>]

A recent NAF decision is interesting in the context of this discussion of
the use of WLS by cybersquatters.

In the proceeding of China Lucky Film Group v. Hu Haobo, FA 109372 (Nat.
Arb. Forum May 28, 2002), Complainant's Internet Service Provider (ISP)
failed to renew <luckyfilm.com>, a domain name it had used for five years.
Respondent seized the opportunity and "grabbed" the lapsed domain name.  The
Panel held that linking <luckyfilm.com> to a website that stated "back-order
expiring domain names you want" constituted evidence of bad faith
registration for the purpose of selling the domain name and the name was
transferred to Complainant.  

If a similar position is consistently taken by UDRP arbitrators, WLS
cybersquatters should have no greater success than ab initio cybersquatters.

This case also points out the real need for a grace period and notice to the
actual domain name owner of the expiration of its domain name since domain
name owners can easily fall victim to the negligence of the ISP or other
party to whom the domain name registration process had been entrusted.

David S. Safran
Nixon Peabody LLP 
8180 Greensboro Drive
Suite 800
McLean, VA 22102
Office:  703.770.9315
Fax:  703.770.9400
dsafran@nixonpeabody.com 

This email message and any attachments are confidential. If you are not the
intended recipient, please immediately reply to the sender and delete the
message from your email system. Thank you.



-----Original Message-----
From: James Love [mailto:james.love@cptech.org]
Sent: Friday, June 14, 2002 9:31 AM
To: John Berryhill; ga@dnso.org
Cc: Transfer TF (E-mail)
Subject: [nc-transfer] Re: [ga] WLS Questions


What would fix the WLS issue would be to have a period after a domain
expired, where anyone who wanted it could express intereset, and there would
be a fair lottery to see who got it.     And, at any point before the
lottery, the old domain holder should be able to get it back.

Jamie


----- Original Message -----
From: "John Berryhill" <john@johnberryhill.com>
To: <ga@dnso.org>
Sent: Friday, June 14, 2002 12:13 AM
Subject: [ga] WLS Questions


:
: I'm trying to understand this notion of how a monopoly WLS, which
guarantees
: only one person a crack at an expiring name, is "fair" relative to
multiple
: competing services, and would appreciate hearing from someone who (a)
: believes it is fair, and (b) is not associated with SnapNames or Verisign.
:
: Chuck Gomes has said that something like 50% of SnapNames customers are
: speculators instead of "average" domain name registrants.  Leaving aside
the
: question of how a population of 50% of anything is not "average", or the
: methodology used to read the minds of the other 50% to determine their
: motivation, then can someone clue me in to how 50% of WLS position holders
: are NOT going to be speculators?
:
: Snapbacks are $69 a pop, and we are told half of them are owned by
: speculators.  So, the point here is that SnapNames wants to have 50% fewer
: customers?  Or they want to charge 100% of them twice as much money in
order
: to get rid of the "bad" customers while keeping the "good" customers?
:
: And with the "price high enough to discourage speculation" idea, what is
the
: evidence that speculators don't have more money than these "average"
: registrants for whom we are trying to make things "fair"?
:
: And if we aren't going to have a dispute resolution procedure for people
who
: take up WLS slots on expiring domain names that are someone else's
: trademarks, then what is the point of making the identity of WLS slot
: holders known?
:
: I have to take my hat off to the guy with enough chutzpah to tell a Senate
: subcommittee that ICANN was strangling consumer choice and competition by
: refusing to introduce a monopoly service that would replace several
: competing services to do the same thing.  Doing that and avoiding
dizziness
: at the same time is an admirable feat.
:
: --
: 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
:
:
:

--
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