RE: [registrars] WLS - VOTING - Objection

[Jim Archer <jarcher@registrationtek.com>]

Hello Tim

AOL is of course an exteme case, but even this domain would be distrupted. 
Even though there is a trademark, time is required to deal with a problem 
like this and the domain is down in the meantime.  I think in most cases, 
the domain holder would end up paying off the WLS older, if they can.

Jim

--On Monday, July 22, 2002 11:21 AM -0500 Tim Ruiz <tim@godaddy.com> wrote:

> Claim? I can't imagine why anyone, other than AOL, would want a WLS on
> AOL.COM. Even if the domain is somehow dropped no one can really profit
> from it unless they somehow acquire the trademark at the same time. So
> what does the WLS holder have a "claim" on that would require shareholder
> notification? All the notice is going to generate is a lot of customer
> support calls for the Registrars.
>
> And I'm not suggesting that the personal information of the WLS holder not
> be gathered. Just that it not be publicly available. VeriSign or ICANN can
> use it to evaluate the WLS success, or lack of it, or whatever. I would
> just hate to see a repeat of the privacy fiasco that the port 43 Whois
> program has become.
>
> Tim
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rick Wesson [mailto:wessorh@ar.com]
> Sent: Monday, July 22, 2002 10:51 AM
> To: Tim Ruiz
> Cc: ross@tucows.com; registrars@dnso.org
> Subject: RE: [registrars] WLS - VOTING - Objection
>
>
>
>
> Tim,
>
> you bring up several important points I'd like to address...
>
> On Mon, 22 Jul 2002, Tim Ruiz wrote:
>
>> Ross,
>>
>> Here are our comments in more detail.
>>
>
> [snip]
>
>> We DON'T agree with the recommendation that the current registrant should
> be
>> sent a notice about a WLS subscription being placed on their domain name.
> We
>> don't understand the purpose of alarming them with this information after
>> the fact. Registrars already have a vested interest in encouraging
> renewals.
>
> I think the shareholders of any major corporation need to understand that
> a major asset has a claim on it, such as AOL.COM or YAHOO.COM; If either
> of these had a WLS on them their shareholders have a right to know with
> this in mind we know better than recommending otherwise.
>
>> And since there will be a redemption period of one sort or another to
>> protect the registrant we don't see a need for this notice. With or
> without
>> the WLS, if they let their registration lapse, someone is going to snap
>> it up.
>
> I'm not sure notice is the correct way either... but it will help us
> figure out the bad registrant data, when contacts are sent notices.
>
>> We DO agree that the fact that a WLS subscription has been placed on a
> name
>> should be available upon request, either through a registrar request, or
>> perhaps through the Whois in some manner.
>
> yes, some publicly available method like whois would be good.
>
>> We DON'T agree that the personal information of the WLS holder should be
>> available. They are not the registrant of the domain name, at least not
> yet.
>> There is enough unfortunate abuse of people's personal information
>> without finding additional excuses for making it available.
>>
>
> again disclosure is important and more so than privacy -- after all it
> might be a fraudulently registered WLS and we need to be able to identify
> those as fraud before the WLS fires rather than after. Also with this
> being a "market test" (on a production name space) public WLS registration
> information would be in-line with the openness required of ICANN
> organizations and assist in the research of the WLS market penetration.
>
> best,
>
> -rick
>
>