[DNS] Cybersquatting

[DNS] Cybersquatting

From: Dassa <dassa§dhs.org>
Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 20:27:06 +1000
|> -----Original Message-----
|> From: dns-bounces+dassa=dhs.org&#167;dotau.org 
|> [mailto:dns-bounces+dassa=dhs.org&#167;dotau.org] On Behalf Of 
|> Bruce Tonkin
|> Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2005 5:31 PM
|> To: .au DNS Discussion List
|> Subject: Re: [DNS] Cybersquatting
|> Hello Ron,
|> > 
|> > Bruce, I don't think that you can declare cybersquatting off topic, 
|> > for the simple reason that it's only the scenario of zero eligibility 
|> > criteria
|> Agreed.  But I am not talking about unrestricted eligibility criteria.
|> That is something some others have raised - but that is a 
|> completely separate topic.
|> The key to prevent cybersquatting is appropriate eligibility 
|> controls and dispute resolution processes.

It is good to see some constructive discussion regarding these issue.  The
mailing list is performing as a sounding board to gauge reaction to proposals
and that is great.

Personally I consider the only real way to combat cybersquatting is to take
away the incentive and that means making sure transfers have a restriction on
the price paid by the recepient to have the transfer completed with penalaties
attached if notification/evidence is provided to show this was attempted to be
circumvented.  I agree the proposal for making transfers easier but with the
same eligibility controls sounds reasonable.

I will look forward to seeing the submission that goes up with the proposals
for change to the policy and the final outcomes.

With a bit of effort I'm sure the majority of players can be satisfied. 

Darryl (Dassa) Lynch 
Received on Tue Sep 27 2005 - 10:27:06 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Sat Sep 09 2017 - 22:00:08 UTC