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

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Safran and all assembly members,

Safran, David wrote:

> 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.

  Yeah, IF?  But that's a very BIG IF, Sefran.  As the history of the
UDRP cases shows, consistency is not one of its redeeming values..
Hence, such a consideration is beyond reasonable consideration
if stability of the DNS it to be consistent...

>
>
> 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.

  Exactly right!  And also why relying on the ISP or Registrar even with
WLS, is nearly worthless...

>
>
> 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

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 124k members/stakeholders strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number:  972-244-3801 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208


--
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