>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sun Jun 27 04:34:27 1999
Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Received: from spitfire.law.miami.edu (spitfire.law.miami.edu [129.171.187.10])
by ns1.vrx.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 82BC1F00A
for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Sun, 27 Jun 1999 04:34:27 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by spitfire.law.miami.edu (Postfix, from userid 1113)
id 159A65C3AA8; Sat, 26 Jun 1999 22:58:03 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by spitfire.law.miami.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 10D685D3A31
for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Sat, 26 Jun 1999 22:58:03 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Sat, 26 Jun 1999 22:58:03 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [IFWP] Re: "thin" registries
In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
I find it odd to disagree with JZ, whom I respect a lot, but I think this
is not at all right.
On Sat, 26 Jun 1999, Jonathan Zittrain wrote:
> Tony,
>
> It seems odd to me that architecture would have the consumer--the would-be
> domain name holder--shop registrars for domain name dispute policies and
> whois data representation. After all, I'd imagine that the point of a
Why is this odd? -- I base many of my transaction decisions on privacy
policies. What seems odd to me is telling people they are NOT allowed to
give me the privacy I think I want.
> dispute policy is to balance the interests of the holder and other later
> claimants both substantively and procedurally. Suppose in a world of
This is a job for statutes. If someone wishes to not include my home
phone number on a world-readable database, and there is no legal
requirement where they and I live to do so, I think the issue comes
pre-balanced, and it is hubristic to impose a different answer on the
world. It's ok with me to give the world extra choices, not to limit
them.
> varying policies a registrar offers the following simple one: we hand out
> names first-come first-served no matter what. The consumer who anticipates
> any question of her right to hold the sought-after name would go with that
> registrar, and a disputant would be left with no policy at all. Similarly,
This mixes apples and salamanders. It's easy to reserve a name pending
lookup if you think that's important. Pre-payment requirements add a
level of business risk, but if you are concerned make the fee
non-refundable. In any case, nothing in the WIPO model imposes any
requirement on the registrar to put in any delay at time of
registration. Everyone assumes that will be fully automated. The issue
is what happens when someone thinks they have a superior came to that
text string. Or just covet it.
> whois data seems as usable to me by those inquiring who holds a domain as
> by the holder herself.
>
There is a vast difference between listing which domains are taken (no
privacy issues in the vast majority of cases, but see names picked in
contemplation of mergers), and listing who has them (privacy violation,
especially in the case of the individual, non-commercial user -- but in
other cases too e.g. those with legitimate fear of retaliation such as
eg a gay book store in some communities).
> I'm not feeling a fan of strict dispute resolution policies--I don't like
> the idea of domain name registrants forced to park whatever traditional
> legal rights they may have for a cookie-cutter arbitration simply to
> acquire a name--but I can see how they only work if they're uniform across
> a registry.
>
I do not agree. At all. In principle or in practice. What is more, I
think the burden of proof here is on those who would shackle the market
by imposing rules on it.
> While I'm using a message slot: do you know what the basis is for the idea
> of "renting" domain names at the registry level instead of owning them,
> which is to say having to pay an ongoing fee every year or two to simply
> keep a previously-acquired name? On a cost-recovery registry I'd figure it
> would either be (1) pay up front and get the name indefinitely or (2) get
> the name and pay again transactionally as you seek to make changes to the
> DNS servers to which it points (i.e. recovering for the de minimus costs of
> registry database changes).
>
I made a very similar argument in the WIPO process. It's clear they want
people to have to pay regularly so that they can check the validity of the
contact details so they can serve them. No other reason was ever
advanced.
--
A. Michael Froomkin | Professor of Law | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA
+1 (305) 284-4285 | +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax) | http://www.law.tm
--> It's hot here. <--
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"They were of a mind to govern us and we were of a mind to govern ourselves."
