Domain name ownership
ptb (ptbo@prodigy.net)
Thu, 11 Mar 1999 18:35:39 -0800
Browse by: [ date ][ subject ][ author ]
Next message: Ethan Katsh: "WIPO Domain Name Process"
Previous message: lchua@cdt.org: "WIPO RFC-3"
All Internet users, corporate and individual, should share equal
status in the eyes of the Internet governing body. All disputes
involving decisions which affect an individual web sight or domain name
should not be influenced by the status of either party. Domain names
should belong to the purchaser and not be taken away without fair
compensation. This should hold true even if the domain name is
trademarked or copyrighted. There should be provisions however, which
allow for the removal of a disputed domain name from the web but not
given without compensation to the entity disputing the name. These
provisions would include the use of the domain name in association with
themes showing poor taste (pornography), proven harm to the integrity of
the name, or illegal activity conducted on the web site.
Domain names are presently awarded through an application process
that assigns a requested name on a first come first served basis. This
method allows the individual the same rights as the corporation on the
Internet system. Logically this should motivate individuals and
businesses to apply and obtain all domain names which they anticipate
using or prevent others from using. Cases in point: IBM, a corporation,
owns over five hundred domain names, while the popular basketball player
known as, Shaq owns over two hundred domain names. The majority of these
domain names remain unused, but were obtained in anticipation of future
needs. This is the way the marketplace works and it should remain so.
Now, certain entities, exercising corporate power and monetary
influence are forcing a change in the rules mid-game. I refer to the
recent practice of allowing corporations to arbitrarily take (demand),
without compensation, those domain names which they lacked the foresight
to obtain themselves in a timely manner. This amounts to Gestapo tactics
as well as a revocation of the individuals right of free speech. An
individual is penalized by loosing the domain name the rightfully
purchased. All because the corporation has deeper pockets with which to
lobby the courts and those in positions to regulate the Internet.
Terminologies, such as name dilution provide lawyers with the
precedence to eliminate the presence of the individual who obtained his
or her domain name through legitimate channels. An individual, on the
other hand, has no chance of getting a domain name owned by a
corporation no matter what the circumstances.
I am aware of the practice of registering domain names based on
speculation. This scheme is possible now due to the sixty-day grace
period between the reserving of a domain name and the deadline in which
payment for the domain name is required. This time lapse allows
speculators to reserve or hold hostage those domain names, which may be
of value to a particular company or individual. Requiring full payment
at the time of domain name registration would reduce this problem
dramatically.
Paul T Bowman
14002 81st Place N.E.
Bothell WA
425-821-8565
ptbo@prodigy.net
Next message: Ethan Katsh: "WIPO Domain Name Process"
Previous message: lchua@cdt.org: "WIPO RFC-3"