RE: [registrars] WLS - VOTING - Objection

[Jim Archer <jarcher@registrationtek.com>]

So, your saying that the registrant should buy WLS to avoide a UDRP fileing 
fee?  This effectively makes a domain very expensive.



--On Monday, July 22, 2002 5:49 PM -0400 dwascher@iaregistry.com wrote:

> Just the traffic alone for a couple of days working through the UDRP would
> be worth the $30 + registration fee for the WLS. As I stated before many
> time, the speculators have been saving their pennies since the drops have
> gone dormant. The speculators have the money and they know how to use each
> of us to work the system.
>
> David Wascher
>
> **-----Original Message-----
> **From: owner-registrars@dnso.org [mailto:owner-registrars@dnso.org]On
> **Behalf Of Jim Archer
> **Sent: Monday, July 22, 2002 5:04 PM
> **To: tim@godaddy.com
> **Cc: registrars@dnso.org
> **Subject: RE: [registrars] WLS - VOTING - Objection
> **
> **
> **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
> **>
> **>
> **
> **