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

["Miles B. Whitener" <mbw@i-theta.com>]

 If a court can order a registry/registrar to assign a name to a
holder, then the registry should have a claim for payment against
the name holder, unless the order is punitive against the
registry in a way that bars payment.  That claim (for example, a
demand for payment) would be pressed through the legal system,
just as the transfer (and the subsequent claim against the
registry) was.  In other words, by ordering the _permanent_
transfer of the name, the court (in my opinion, only as a
citizen, not a lawyer, which I'm not) implicitly ordered the new
name holder to _in perpetuity_ for the maintenance of the name.
 Unfortunately, at various times in history, courts have ordered
transfers of assets that are inequitable.  Here is one possible
case, that is, a registry ordered never to assign or reassign a
certain name, and also ordered, explicitly or implicitly, to do
so without compensation.   This would be a situation to be
remedied by a higher court, a legislature (via either statutory
or constitutional law), or a revolt.
 But we need details here.  For all we know the order states
clearly that it's only in force as long as Dell keeps its account
in good standing per current DNS governance.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Joanna Lane" <jo-uk@rcn.com>
To: "Miles B. Whitener" <mbw@i-theta.com>; <rmeyer@mhsc.com>
Cc: <wg-review@dnso.org>
Sent: Monday, February 05, 2001 2:37 PM
Subject: RE: [wg-review] Re: dndef, 9


> 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