browse comments: Re: Simple Solution

Re: Simple Solution
Clark Evans (clark.evans@manhattanproject.com)
Fri, 26 Feb 1999 04:27:39 +0000

Browse by: [ date ][ subject ][ author ]
Next message: ccutright@wa.net: "WIPO RFC-3"
Previous message: Clark Evans: "Simple Solution"
Maybe in reply to: Clark Evans: "Simple Solution"

I don't think that this point is necessary at
this level.

I believe that not allowing transfer/resale will stop
the name hijacking. And having internet realistate
auctioned will better reflect the commercial nature
of the beast. Property owned or recovered by the
government is usually auctioned -- why not domains?

I think many people have registed names and then
said 'oops!' and changed their mind. What would
be a good policy, is to give 1/2 the money back
or something like that if the domain name
is returned. I have a bunch of domain names
that I registered (each with their own purpose)
about 6 months ago that I would spend time
returning if there was economic reward.

For those who hijack to prevent usage of a
competitor's trademark or to violate trademarks,
then this is something that only courts can
resolve anyway... if an individual dosn't
return the site for auction. Every case is
different, so trying to predict how the system
will be abused and put up restrictions
"just-in-case" dosn't sound wise.

In general, I think the culture is growing
and learning. There is a clear difference
between "COM" and "ORG" -- it's amazing how
people actually stick to these distinctions.

To respond to the specifics:

> Is being able to receive e-mail "use"?

Not unless there is significant investment on the
user's part after a period of, say 3-6 months.

> Is a very simple www page ("watch this space for exciting
> developments Real Soon Now") use? What about people who
> register names for legit secret reasons, e.g. a film that's
> due out in 3 years? what "use" should we require.

Well, if a claim of usage is actually backed with fact,
then there will be an economic trail demonstrating
expendatures far exceeding web site registration.
Even non-profit orgnizations or small groups of people
meeting (www.patternstudy.com) should have some record
of their investment. If they have invested in the name
then, it is "in-use".

For the e-mail example, I must have over 1000 posts on
various lists with clark.evans@manhattanproject.com ;
This should be sufficient evidence that the domain
is 'in-use'. For a simple web site, if it is being
advertised then there will be expendatures relating
to this... etc.

I see determining "use" as being something the
courts should define, with real cases that provide
the context. Trying to legislate a solution here
is god awful.

> Clark Evans wrote:
>
> >
> > I just finished reading:
> >
> > http://wipo2.wipo.int/process/eng/rfc_3.html
> >
> > And I have a simple suggestion:
> >
> > Forbid the sale/transfer of domain names!
> >
> > To support this,
> >
> > a) Put a time limit on usage of the domain name, if it is
> > not being used for say, 3 months, then revoke the
> > domain name. Make returning registred names easier!
> > Perhaps give the person 1/2 the money paid for registration
> > back as a reward for returning the name back to the
> > community.
> >
> > b) Auction names. Don't make them $70, not when a company
> > will pay several thousand! Use the names to raise money
> > for public services, infrastructure, etc. If someone
> > wants a name that is not in use, it is publicly advertised
> > and it goes up for a 7 day period of bidding.
> >
> > Then, and only then, if someone uses a domain
> > name to support a competing business violating
> > a trademark... by all means, take the person
> > to court.
> >
> > Good luck,
> >
> > Clark Evans
>
> --
> A. Michael Froomkin WIPO-related matters: amf@law.miami.edu
> Professor of Law "It's warm here"
> 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