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

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

DELLKOREA.COM is absolutely public, both in the WHOIS and the
DNS, so the discussion is a bit theoretical:

NSI WHOIS:

Registrant:
Dell Computer Corporation (DELLKOREA8-DOM)
   One Dell Way
   Round Rock, TX 78682  US

   Domain Name: DELLKOREA.COM
...
   Record last updated on 13-Dec-2000.
   Record expires on 13-Dec-2001.
   Record created on 13-Dec-2000.
   Database last updated on 5-Feb-2001 10:43:35 EST.

   Domain servers in listed order:

   NS1.US.DELL.COM  143.166.82.251
   NS2.US.DELL.COM  143.166.82.252

DNS:

> set type=ns
> dellkorea.com
...
Non-authoritative answer:
dellkorea.com   nameserver = NS2.US.DELL.com
dellkorea.com   nameserver = NS1.US.DELL.com

NS2.US.DELL.com internet address = 143.166.82.252
NS1.US.DELL.com internet address = 143.166.82.251


----- Original Message -----
From: "Eric Dierker" <ERIC@HI-TEK.COM>
To: "Miles B. Whitener" <mbw@i-theta.com>
Cc: <jo-uk@rcn.com>; <rmeyer@mhsc.com>; <wg-review@dnso.org>
Sent: Monday, February 05, 2001 3:15 PM
Subject: Re: [wg-review] Re: dndef, 9


>
>
> "Miles B. Whitener" wrote:
>
> >  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 as you point out below we have a problem here also, Dell
has to pay
> to keep it out of the public, or conversly, the name is in
limbo and the
> registry can't do business.
>
> I am working on getting the actual documents.
>
> >  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
>
> --
> 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