Michael,
> I am not a trust expert, but I'm instinctively dubious that this
> would work. You'd need to find someone who knew. My guess,
> though, is that the trustees would have great discretion, and only
> a court could review it -- and that it wouldn't want to...
It occurs to me that there may also be a model in the health-care
field. 1st party Joe needs the services of 2nd party Dr; 3rd party
payer HMO agrees to pay for Joe's use of Drs service *if they get to
decide what the service is worth (based on best practice, etc), and
the class of risk Joe represents.
OK: 1st party Mabel needs the services of 2nd party Registry; 3rd
party payer Registrant agrees to pay for Mabels domain name if
they get to decide what the service is worth (based on *possible
trademark infringement, etc), and the class of risk Mabel
represents.
But this is not at all the way it operates at present; somehow the
registrar is 2nd, takes the money but leaves 1st with all the
liability. What is missing, it appears is the 'best practice' aspect of
the Registry; essentially, the lab/ field reports that provide the
basis of actuarial analysis that 'names of this sort are susceptible
to that extent,' by which the liability could be estimated.
No, at the moment what we have is an eminence gris that insists
that it holds the keys to the inter-nation and to which all ye who
enter the name-domain must pay tribute. Sure, there are TM
databases, but there is no International Nomenclature Association
to provide even the vaguest authority for saying that Foobarf.com
has yea-many liability-vectors (Ph-, Fu-, -bar1, etc etc), much less
for tracking an epidemic of popularity for Feu-, Fou-, or Phew-
names. Let's see this professional analytic service come together,
and then we may be able to make some legal/ fiscal sense of it all.
kerry
