[ncdnhc-discuss] Re: WLS proposal

[todd glassey]

There is another key concept with expiring names and that is that the
previous owner may still be using the trademark publicly... Ooops.

Todd

----- Original Message -----
From: "James Love" <james.love at cptech.org>
To: <todd.glassey at worldnet.att.net>
Cc: <james.love at cptech.org>; <simons at acm.org>; <marc at fuchsia.bijt.net>;
<nc-transfer at dnso.org>; <discuss at icann-ncc.org>; <ga at dsno.org>
Sent: Monday, June 17, 2002 5:22 PM
Subject: Re: WLS proposal


> Here is an important reason why domain holders would be better off under
> my proposal.   During the 30 day period when people signed up for the
> lottery to get the expired name, anyone who wanted could contact the
> previous owner of the domain, and ask them to reregister the name
> (permitted during the 30 day period), and then sell it.  If the domain
> holder had let the domain expire by mistake, they would then be alerted.
> If the domain holder did not make a mistake, they would then be informed
> that (a) the domain has value and (b) the name of one or more persons
> willing to buy it.  In every case where someone actually contacted the
> previous owner of the domain, the domain owner would be better off.
>  Jamie
>
>
>
> > The problem is more than just the submission of a false credential, it
> > is the operations of the Registrar with that false credential that
> > compounds the problem. I would suggest that an additional requirements
> > such that the registrars were required to ping each one of the
> > addresses that their domain managers have supplied and any that bounce
> > more than once are flamed, and the domain is pulled and held in
> > suspense for an additional 30 days.
> >
> > If you have a domain and you don't know whether its up or down in a
> > months time then its not too important and well should be flamed.
> >
> > Todd Glassey
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "James Love" <james.love at cptech.org>
> > To: <simons at acm.org>
> > Cc: <james.love at cptech.org>; <marc at fuchsia.bijt.net>;
> > <nc-transfer at dnso.org>; <discuss at icann-ncc.org>
> > Sent: Monday, June 17, 2002 4:09 PM
> > Subject: Re: [nc-transfer] Re: [ncdnhc-discuss] WLS proposal
> >
> >
> >> My proposal was *not* an endorsement of any US legislation.   What I
> >> mean by "accurate" whois data is that the person expressing interest
> >> in an expired domain has to be a real person, with a real billing
> >> address. That is already a requirement in the gTLD registry contracts.
> >>  It could be any real person, including a real person who is doing it
> >> for someone else.
> >>  This is in the context of a one person one chance lottery over
> >>  expired
> >> domains.    If you did not think you could address the one person one
> >> chance approach, you could have a lottery among registrars, which are
> >> unique.
> >>   Jamie
> >>
> >>
> >> > Jamie,
> >> > What do you mean by "accurate" whois data?  Does this mean that you
> >> > support HR 4640, which would make it a felony to provide inaccurate
> >> > information, even including address info of the domain name holder?
> >> > I'm sure you appreciate the privacy implications of requiring domain
> >> > name owners, eg parents who have purchased domain names for their
> >> > kids, to provide their physical addresses.
> >> > Barbara
> >> > P.S.  While it's important that accurate whois information be
> >> > provided for the technical contact, I see no compelling reason for
> >> > providing accurate address information about the owner of the domain
> >> > name.
> >> >
> >> > On 6/17/02 12:35 PM, "James Love" <james.love at cptech.org> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Marc Schneiders wrote:
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>> How do you make sure that I do not try to be 1000 persons, so
> >> >>> enhancing my chance at getting a domain in the lottery?
> >> >>
> >> >>   Well, I would require that you provide accurate whois data in
> >> >>   order to
> >> >> bid, and if you committed fraud, I would bar you from future
> >> >> participation.
> >> >>   You could also rely upon a financial transaction to confirm a
> >> >>   real
> >> >> billing address.
> >> >>
> >> >> Jamie
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> ------
> >> >> James Love, Consumer Project on Technology
> >> >> http://www.cptech.org, mailto:love at cptech.org
> >> >> voice: 1.202.387.8030; mobile 1.202.361.3040
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> _______________________________________________
> >> >> Discuss mailing list
> >> >> Discuss at icann-ncc.org
> >> >> http://www.icann-ncc.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
> >> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> James Love
> >> http://www.cptech.org mailto:james.love at cptech.org
> >> mobile +1.202.361.3040
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Discuss mailing list
> >> Discuss at icann-ncc.org
> >> http://www.icann-ncc.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Discuss mailing list
> > Discuss at icann-ncc.org
> > http://www.icann-ncc.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>
>
> --
> James Love
> http://www.cptech.org mailto:james.love at cptech.org
> mobile +1.202.361.3040
>
>
>