RE: [wg-review] Re: dndef, 9

["Joanna Lane" <jo-uk@rcn.com>]

Do the court's go so far as to distinguish between a domain name as created
and domain name as published?

If so, in the circumstances that a new registrant defaults on renewal
payments for publishing a domain name that has been awarded to it by a
court, I don't think the Registry/ Registrar can just delete the domain name
and the registrants creative rights to it in the process.

I imagine they would have an obligation to keep the option to publish open
permanently for the registrant who has demonstrated a legitimate right to it
and none other. The question is, what obligations is the new registrant
under to publish the name once it has been awarded, if any?

If none, a seperation of rights to a domain name into creative and
publishing, seems to introduce a loophole which would allow a disreputable
person and company to legitimately cybersquat names without actually paying
anybody for them at all after the initial award had been made.

Joanna

-----Original Message-----
From: Miles B. Whitener [mailto:mbw@i-theta.com]
Sent: Monday, February 05, 2001 2:07 PM
To: jo-uk@rcn.com
Cc: wg-review@dnso.org
Subject: Re: [wg-review] Re: dndef, 9


Anyway, I very much doubt that in the case mentioned there's any
ambiguity at all about whether payments have to continue to be
made on the name.  There's no way that the regular T&C were
bypassed.  Any two name holders can make a transfer any time they
like, and in so doing they will ascribe to the T&C of the
registrar and COM domain holder.  The only difference here would
be that the transfer is forced.

From: "Miles B. Whitener" <mbw@i-theta.com>
> A sad outcome of judicial activism.
> It seems to me that an ordered transfer can't generally
interfere
> with the rights of the registrar.  So a permanent transfer
would
> have to be interpreted to mean "as long as the transferee
> maintains the domain".
> The registrar in this case would have to delete the domain,
else
> could be sued for unfair treatment (deleting other domains when
> payment is not made).

----- Original Message -----
From: "Joanna Lane" <jo-uk@rcn.com>
To: "Miles B. Whitener" <mbw@i-theta.com>
Cc: <wg-review@dnso.org>
Sent: Monday, February 05, 2001 12:49 PM
Subject: RE: [wg-review] Re: dndef, 9


> I think Eric means what happens if a registrant, having been
awarded the
> name permanently, then declines to make any payments. The
registrars cannot
> force the domain name holder to pay in perpetuity, but equally,
cannot
> resell the name.
> Joanna
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-wg-review@dnso.org
[mailto:owner-wg-review@dnso.org]On
> Behalf Of Miles B. Whitener
> Sent: Monday, February 05, 2001 1:23 PM
> To: Eric Dierker; Phil King
> Cc: wg-review@dnso.org
> Subject: Re: [wg-review] Re: dndef, 9
>
>
> > The Judge got the property right but those poor registrars.
> How can they charge
> > for renewals if the judge orders it permanently transferred?
>
> When you transfer a domain, the new domain holder pays renewal
> charges.
> Haven't you ever transferred a domain?
>
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the wg-review@dnso.org list.
> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe wg-review" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>
>

--
This message was passed to you via the wg-review@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe wg-review" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html