RE: [nc-deletes] Minutes - Conference Call, November 15

["John Berryhill" <john@johnberryhill.com>]

I have also seen it happen, but do not understand the need for a policy to
deal with it.

The simple fact is that domain registrants who do not pay their bill, or do
not keep track of the expiration date, lose the right to continued service
under the domain registration contract.

Similarly, there are people who just as carelessly and incompetently file
UDRP complaints prior to an impending expiration date of the domain name.
The mere fact that these complainants cannot adequately consult a calendar
is not a grounds for a unilateral extension of a contract that the
registrant does not desire to extend.  In fact, by forcing domain
registrants to maintain extended registrations, outside of the contract
terms on which they registered the domain name, does not strike me as being
legal.  An apt analogy would be seeking to obtain an order confining a
tenant to the premises from which you are trying to evict him.  In what area
of law is the plaintiff encouraged to maintain the claimed injury for the
purpose of a legal proceeding?  Why do we regularly dispense with
established legal norms when the subject is the internet?

When a person registers a domain name for one year under a contract, then
they are ENTITLED to be released from that contract upon the termination of
one year.  Anyone who cannot grasp that basic fact of contract law should
find a profession other than law.

The only thing brought into disrepute is the competence of people who file
UDRP complaints in the face of an impending expiration date.

In the real world of trademarks, what idiot lawyer would file, for example,
a cancellation petition against a registered mark which is weeks away from
its renewal date?  A normal person might want to see whether the
registration is renewed, or lapses on its own.  But again, when the subject
is the internet, there is an assumption that we need to save stupid people
from doing stupid things.  That's not the way the world works.

It is indeed unfortunate that there are lawyers who have styled themselves
as "experts" in domain proceedings, and are confronted with their own
ignorance from time to time.  That is not a DNS policy issue.

Additionally, there are registrars through which it is difficult to manage
transfers or to delete domain registrations.  I have seen numerous instances
where a domain registrant has, upon receipt of a cease and desist letter,
decided to simply not renew the domain name, if the renewal date is near.
There are many fire breathing attorneys who will not compensate for
registration and transfer costs as permitted under the UDRP by its own
terms.  Anyone who regularly deals with transfers of domain names knows that
there are registrars who make the procedure difficult, frustrating, and a
waste of time. [1] The idea of frustrating the intention of the domain
registrant to comply in good faith with such a letter by forcing them to
maintain the registration against their will, is absurd.


John

[1] For example, some registrars require notarized documents, and some US
attorneys have NO idea whatsoever how expensive notary services can be in
some countries.  Domain registrants regularly choose to allow names to
expire, rather than to pay what can be several hundred dollars to find and
utilize a notary.


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-nc-deletes@dnso.org [mailto:owner-nc-deletes@dnso.org]On Behalf
Of Jane Mutimear
Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2002 10:09 AM
To: Jane Mutimear; 'Adam Peake'; nc-deletes@dnso.org
Subject: RE: [nc-deletes] Minutes - Conference Call, November 15


OK.  This problem has arisen more than I expected - the case manager at WIPO
that I've just spoken to says she knows of between 20 and 30 cases.  With
registrars that they know won't continue the lock past expiry, they ask up
front whether the domain will expire and advise the parties to contact the
registrar.  There have been several cases where after the decision the
complainant wonders why the decision hasn't been implemented and then
discovers that the domain lapsed and was purchased by someone else in the
meantime.  WIPO don't like this as it brings the whole procedures into
disrepute.

I'm still getting feedback from IPC members - I should have a proposal by
Friday.

Jane
-----Original Message-----
From: Jane Mutimear [mailto:jane.mutimear@twobirds.com]
Sent: 20 November 2002 13:54
To: 'Adam Peake'; nc-deletes@dnso.org
Subject: RE: [nc-deletes] Minutes - Conference Call, November 15


I'm trying to get some feedback as to how often this problem has arisen.  I
think it's likely to be relatively rare.
Jane
-----Original Message-----
From: Adam Peake [mailto:ajp@glocom.ac.jp]
Sent: 20 November 2002 13:37
To: nc-deletes@dnso.org
Subject: Re: [nc-deletes] Minutes - Conference Call, November 15


>DELETES TASK FORCE, CONFERENCE CALL NOTES
>November 15, 2002   14:00 UTC



>
>Jane Mutimear pointed to the discussion of names being deleted while
>the subject of a UDRP dispute.  There was general consensus that this
>was not desirable, but neither was forcing registrars to carry domain
>names that were no longer being paid for.  Mutimear agreed to provide a
>proposed solution for the problem to the task force by the next
>conference call.



I asked on the call if this was a common problem. Seemed to me that
it would be a rather rare, though the reaction then was that it was
enough of a concern that it needed addressing. Since, two people from
the NCC have asked the same question and I'm wondering if there's
data on how many times a name has been deleted during a UDRP dispute?
I understand that registrars should not be required to pick up the
costs of something they have no control over. But if it's a rare
occurrence, perhaps it's not much of an issue? And I can't see how
the situation could be gamed to put registrars at serious risk.
Thanks,
Adam


--

________________________________________________________________________
BIRD & BIRD
The contents of this e-mail are intended for the named addressee only.
It contains information which may be confidential and which may also be
privileged.
Unless you are the named addressee (or authorised to receive for the
addressee) you may not copy or use it, or disclose it to anyone else. If you
received it in error please notify us immediately and then destroy it.
Further, we make every effort to keep our network free from viruses.
However, you do need to verify that this email and any attachments are free
of viruses as we can take no responsibility for any computer virus which
might be transferred by way of this e-mail.
Please refer to http://www.twobirds.com/fsma.cfm for our regulatory position
under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 of the United Kingdom.
A full list of partners is available on request.
Details of our offices are available from http://www.twobirds.com

This e-mail has been scanned for all viruses by Star Internet. The
service is powered by MessageLabs. For more information on a proactive
anti-virus service working around the clock, around the globe, visit:
http://www.star.net.uk
________________________________________________________________________


________________________________________________________________________
BIRD & BIRD
The contents of this e-mail are intended for the named addressee only.
It contains information which may be confidential and which may also be
privileged.
Unless you are the named addressee (or authorised to receive for the
addressee) you may not copy or use it, or disclose it to anyone else. If you
received it in error please notify us immediately and then destroy it.
Further, we make every effort to keep our network free from viruses.
However, you do need to verify that this email and any attachments are free
of viruses as we can take no responsibility for any computer virus which
might be transferred by way of this e-mail.
Please refer to http://www.twobirds.com/fsma.cfm for our regulatory position
under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 of the United Kingdom.
A full list of partners is available on request.
Details of our offices are available from http://www.twobirds.com

This e-mail has been scanned for all viruses by Star Internet. The
service is powered by MessageLabs. For more information on a proactive
anti-virus service working around the clock, around the globe, visit:
http://www.star.net.uk
________________________________________________________________________