Hello Derek,
Friday, December 08, 2000, 6:06:46 PM, you wrote:
> Only that risk for the timeframe in which I hold it. Or, alternatively, I
> could not "increase those prices" and just not be a gimp and register
> peoples' trademarks that belong to big companies with legal budgets. Or I
You have no idea how wrong you would still be. Are you aware of how
many cases are filed every year that do not involve marks that are
CLEARLY those of famous trademarks you would recognize on sight? Are
you going to pass on the expensive cost of doing an exhaustive
trademark search and deny registration of any domain for which a
possible trademark conflict is found?
> could just say that I abide by the UDRP (I have no vested interest in the
> domain after all) and surrender the domain to the trademark owner if need
> be. Not seeing a lot of financial risk here, William.
First of all, the UDRP is not binding on the trademark holder. They
do not have to file a UDRP complaint. They can go straight to court,
and many have and do. The UDRP is irrelevant in those cases. Lastly,
who would be your customer if they discovered that on such a simple
demand, you would give "their" domain away, and they do have a right
to assert that the domain is "theirs." They would then have grounds
to sue YOU for their loss of business.
And while you may win that case, you could be litigated to death.
> Have I read the agreement between ICANN and its registrars? No. So I can't
> say for certain how IT defines Registrant. However, I'm willing to bet a
> six pack of your favorite beverage that it doesn't say its the end-user,
> but that it says its the person doing business with the registrar, which,
> in this case, is the RSP.
I'll take that.
> I'll also note that you were unable to back up your statement with any sort
> of actual excerpts from the ICANN/Registrar agreement.
I'm not going to waste my time going out and reresearching those
documents that I *HAVE* already read just to satisfy the self
assertions of someone who hasn't even bothered to read the legal
documents that bind him and his customers to the registrar, NSI, and
ICANN.
>>Read your agreements.
> My agreements are irrelevant. What's now being discussed, really, is
> whether - by not assigning the domain directly to the RSP for reassignment
> - Tucows is actually violating ITS agreement with ICANN, and that's an
> agreement I'm not privy to.
Go read them. They are available at the ICANN site.
>>> We're not talking Quantum Physics here, William. :)
>>
>>No, we are talking common contract law.
>>
>>And I really do not think you want to be the registrant for all these
>>domains, you seem to want to pull an Al Gore, and want to be the
>>registrant in situations that you see to be in your benefit, but not
>>in situations where it would not be to your benefit.
> No, actually, a better analogy is I want to be the car dealer who places an
> order for a custom Mazda Miata. The manufacturer (Tucows/Mazda) will ship
> the car to the dealer, charge the dealer, and transfer ownership to the
> dealer (Dealer == RSP), and then upon presentation of suitable payment, the
> dealer/RSP transfers ownership/title of the item to the requester.
Domains are not automobiles. And the courts have already ruled that
domains are NOT property. So they do not have the same
characteristics in the law that physical merchandise have.
>>The agreements are clear, Derek. I really suggest you read them. That
>>you admit to not having read them prior to getting into this business
>>is rather disturbing to me, and should be to your customers as well.
> William, to me personally this really is a philosophical argument.
No, it really isn't. It's a legal argument.
Also, I see absolutely no reason for OpenSRS to turn those domains
over to the RSPs. Their existing policy is already sticking their
neck out in favor of the RSPs, but that's a balance and a risk they
felt was sufficient to take.
> I have
> precisely three customers, and if any of them stiffed me, they know they'd
> be facing reconstructive surgery on their knees. ;-) I'm trying to figure
> out why the average RSP gets shafted in this process, and you seem to want
> to just play kiss-ass without actually invoking any sort of logic in your
> argument whatsoever. Do you get extra credits in your RSP account for how
> brown your nose gets or something?
Derek, maybe you don't know me or my history, but I got into this
domain mess with a strong premise that the rights of domain name
holders are of PARAMOUNT importance, and that the process as it
existed then, and even more so now, does little to protect those
rights. As an RSP, I balance my rights to the rights of the user. I
find OpenSRS's current policy a respectful balance of those rights.
What I see you trying to do would further erode those rights
to a point that I find unacceptable. I have no idea what OpenSRS's
position is, I don't ask them before I post, and you will note that my
positions and theirs do not always jive. I am as quick to criticize
them when I feel a position or policy of theirs is incorrect as I am
when I find your posts incorrect.
Where OpenSRS has earned my respect is that I have learned that they
take every one of those comments seriously, even when they find that
they are in disagreement with them.
Your assertion that I am somehow defending OpenSRS do or die is so
blatently a personal attack, that I should just give it the only
recognition is deserves and ignore it and anything further you say on
this thread. But I want to answer it only for the benefit of the
others on this list who are reading this thread with interest.
The bottom line is that you think so little of the actual contracts
that are the governing factor on these issues and on this business
that you have not even taken the time to read them and actually see
first hand how they effect these positions and issues and the
relationships between the parties.
That alone says a lot.
--
Best regards,
William mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
