Chuck (I know you are out there somewhere...)
Could you answer a few hypothetical questions (or direct these
questions to the appropriate person at NSI?)
1. Someone registers a domain which is later challenged by a TM
holder using NSI's 'fatally flawed dispute policy'. The domain is put
on hold. Seeing this, the registrant decides to pay a few bucks and
change registrar to one that doesn't have the same dispute policy.
Question: what will happen? Will NSI the registry honor the transfer
request? If so, will it accept the change in status to 'active' once
the new registrar is responsible and tells "NSI the registry" that the
domain status should be active?
2. Same fact pattern, except the change takes place at renewal time
and the registrar informs NSI one day later (After the renewal has
been successfully processed).
3. In some jurisdictions, the 'indemnify and hold harmless' clauses
are considered to be against public policy (or public order in civil
law jurisdictions). Will NSI refuse to honor registrations from
countries where the clause could be struck down by their local
courts? Will NSI let registrars deal with this? Who will be on the
hook for costs should a registrant actually get through the system and
manages to register a domain using a false address (one in a country
that does not hold such clauses to be against public policy)?
4. Same fact pattern except assume that NSI decides to not be in the
business of policing jurisdictions (a much safer approach, IMHO).
Assuming a registrant gets through and registers, who is on the hook
for the costs? NSI? the registrar? Certainly not the registrant who
can get the hold harmless clause struck down where they live and get
off scott-free (beam me up scottie <g>).
5. Under the registrar license agreement, who is ulitmately
responsible for the validity of the information supplied by the
registrar to the registry?
6. By what right does the registrar have authority to grant any form
of license to the registry (under 2.5) for the data elements such as
SLD name? Does this mean that without such a right, NSI could not
operate a registry?
7. Is there a list of names that cannot be registered because of
statute or regulation under 2.14?
8. Does the existence of 2.14 infer that all other names are possible?
9. 5.2 appears to imply an end to the 'register now, pay later' system
for domains. Will NSI follow this policy that it is apparently
imposing on registrars? Or does it simply mean that registrars are
free to front the money to registrants as long as NSI (the registry)
is paid?
10. Under 3.2 and 6.9, it appears that the registry cannot sublicense
their rights to register domains. At least one organization already
accepted (CORE) consists of a number of separate entities with the
'core' component consisting of a registry (not a registrar). How will
the CORE structure (and any other entity that either by nature or by
economic necessity wishes to distribute its registration funcion to
other related entities) be accomodated by 3.2 without prejudicing the
rights of others to operate their business in an optimal manner?
11. What would be the effect of 6.1(e) (bankruptcy provision) given
that at least one entity is composed of multiple sub-entities, at
least one of which might be expected to go bankrupt?
12. How would 'another licensed registrar' be selected in the event of
termination under 6.1(f)?
13. There is no number 13. I think I have given you enough for one
day.
14. Oh, and one more thing...
Is it because of all of the above issues that you inserted 6.13?? <G>
Have a nice weekend.
Dan Steinberg
SYNTHESIS:Law & Technology
35, du Ravin
Box 532, RR1 phone: (613) 794-5356
Chelsea, Quebec fax: (819) 827-4398
J0X 1N0 e-mail:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
