[DNS] Rightful owners

[DNS] Rightful owners

From: Dassa <dassa§dhs.org>
Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 20:15:18 +1000
In line as appropriate.

|> -----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: Wednesday, September 28, 2005 2:26 PM
|> To: .au DNS Discussion List
|> Subject: [DNS] Rightful owners
|> Hello Dassa,
|> > 
|> > I prefer the following definition:
|> > Cybersquatting is the act of registering a popular Internet 
|> > address--usually a company name--with the intent of 
|> selling it to its 
|> > rightful owner.
|> You seem to be assuming that there is some unique "rightful owner" for
|> each domain name.   

No I'm saying that if there is a hostname being held and not used or intended
to be used as designed but there is another entity which wants to use the
hostname correctly, then the second enitity is the right person to have the

If there were more than one entity who wanted to use the hostname correctly
then the best way would be to have a random draw, as that would add
administrative overhead it is easier to allow a first come first serve system
to operate.

|> A secondary market is assuming that there are multiple 
|> "rightful owners"
|> of a domain name, and that these rightful owners should be 
|> able to trade amongst themselves, in the same way as other 
|> similar markets.

I'd rather see a random draw, having a market introduces questionable

|> For example in the .travel namespace you need first to be 
|> approved to have a particular name.  You need to effectively 
|> show that you have rights to a particular name, and hence 
|> you may register a domain name
|> that matches that name.   This actually was the original basis for
|> registration in .com.au.   People with rights to a 
|> particular name are
|> free to transfer the names, and the registrar must check 
|> that the two parties have those rights before completing a transfer.
|> Note that even trademarks tend to be limited to particular 
|> market segments.  E.g two companies can hold the same 
|> trademark, as long as they are in different industries and 
|> that consumers would not be confused.
|> In the geographic names ballot process the assumption was 
|> that there were multiple rightful holders of a particular 
|> name, and a ballot process was used to select which rightful 
|> holder got which name.
|> Registrars had to ensure that each participant in the ballot 
|> met the eligibility criteria.

A fair enough system.  Although I do recall a number of people being outspoken
in their complaints when the results stated to be known.

|> > 
|> > I would prefer not to see anyone allowed to register a domain name 
|> > they don't intend to use at some point.
|> This is an eligibility criteria.   We could certainly consider adding
|> this to the existing eligibility criteria.

It may be hard to implement.  I tend to favour systems that are more

|> > 
|> > |> We already have a large number of policies in place to stop 
|> > |> cybersquatting, making the transfer process easier will have no 
|> > |> impact whatsoever in this regard. There is therefore no
|> > point anyone
|> > |> discussing the issue of cybersquatting, it is completely
|> > irrelevant
|> > |> to current proposals.
|> > 
|> > The discussion is about changing those policies which are 
|> the controls 
|> > over undesirable practices, of course they should be discussed.
|> No.   I am not talking about changing the policies that prevent
|> cybersquatting.
|> As I have stated earlier these are handled via the 
|> eligibility rules and dispute resolution processes.  These 
|> currently seem to be working.
|> I am talking about changing the policy that stops rightful 
|> holders of domain names (ie the vast majority of the .com.au 
|> customers) from trading with each other.

I don't have any issues with making transfers easier between eligible
entities.  I do have concerns over allowing a full secondary market to come
into play.

|> If the eligibility rules are working, then a cybersquatter 
|> would not have a name in the first place that they could trade.

Unfortunately we know there are work arounds and people trying to break
through the system already.

Darryl (Dassa) Lynch
Received on Wed Sep 28 2005 - 10:15:18 UTC

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