The fact is that NetSol has recently made a policy change that makes it
impossible for a trademark holder or company to use a domain matching
their trademark if the domain was previously registered with NSI and has
expired. NSI has provided no alternate mechanism for acquiring these
domains, and has established previously that their "dispute policy" is
not something by which they themselves will abide.
So what does that leave us with? Only the loopholes.
While I don't like the idea, the failure of NSI/Verisign to create a
consistent set of policies and procedures that adhere to the ICANN
policies makes it necessary for us to take things into our own hands.
It's exactly the sort of situation that prompted the demonopolization
of the InterNIC a few years ago.
No, it's not okay in my book, but if the only alternative is "wait and
hope", I'll take my chances with my conscience and hope that anyone else
who does the same will have scruples similar to mine. And when Verisign
comes up with a workable policy, I'll be very happy to follow it.
Despite their expectations, the world will not stop and wait for
Verisign to catch up. Like Microsoft, they only *think* they're a
force of nature.
p
On Tue, Aug 21, 2001 at 01:37:35PM +0700, DomainGuideBook.com wrote:
>
> > "manipulating" the paper trail
>
> So grabbing onhold names that you never owned by exploiting the Netsol FAX
> loop-hole is ok in your book? What if three other companies in the world
> have the same name. Should they all send in their faxes and claim rights to
> the name whilst it is onhold? Surely the only legal way to get these names
> is to wait for them to be deleted...
>
> Lee Hodgson
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Paul Chvostek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: DomainGuideBook.com <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2001 1:24 PM
> Subject: Re: Domain held up at Network Solutions
>
>
> >
> > Ah, I guess I didn't really pick up on Steve's lack of association
> > with the domain.
> >
> > My comment regarding company name or trademark was because NSI wants
> > a level of confidence before accepting FAX authorizations. If there's
> > an "A+ Welding Corp" owned awldco.com and goes bankrupt, and the former
> > owners lose interest in the domain, it is still possible for another
> > company with the same name to acquire the domain. And if I was running
> > a company that sold Awls out of stores Washington DC and Ontario, and
> > the domain awldco.com represented how I present my company, I would not
> > have a problem "manipulating" the paper trail so that I could use the
> > domain.
> >
> > So ... I approve of free-market first-come-first-served access to the
> > DNS for *legitimate* use, but I have a *big* problem with sqatting.
> > Same with generic domains. Unilever was first into the soup kitchen
> > for the domain "mouthwash.com". Ya snooze ya lose. But the domain
> > naming system is supposed to exist to allow easier access to IP-based
> > resources on the 'Net. Domain names are not a resource, they are an
> > index. People who hold domain names for ransom for the sole purpose of
> > making a buck are just parasites. I hold them in the same regard as
> > spammers and virus programmers.
> >
> > I guess it all depends on your definition of "legitimate". I *don't*
> > consider the Internet to be an oil well which I can tap until it is dry,
> > then move on. I value the Internet as a resource for the exchange of
> > information. Squatting, like spam, devalues the resource by making it
> > more difficult and expensive to operate.
> >
> > p
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Aug 21, 2001 at 12:48:42PM +0700, DomainGuideBook.com wrote:
> > >
> > > > If the former domain holder cannot be reached and the domain is
> > > > already past expiry, and Steve has a company name or trademark
> > > > paperwork that identifies the connection between himself and either
> > > > the domain or the company name on the domain, the procedure to get
> > > > control of the domain is well documented. He pays the $35 to NSI,
> > > > does a FAX authorization to change the admin contact to a valid
> > > > email address, then authorizes the registrar change. I've done it
> > > > a number of times for customers who "left" previous ISPs without
> > > > securing their old email addresses.
> > >
> > > I'm now confused ;)
> > >
> > > Steve never said he had any connection to the name or trademark, only
> that
> > > he would like to own it. If he cannot contact the former owner, there is
> no
> > > legal way of getting the name from NSI. It has to be dropped first.
> > >
> > > > And if Steve *doesn't* have a trademark or real company that actually
> > > > warrants the use of the domain, it would of course be unacceptable to
> > > > do all this just to squat. But that's a different discussion.
> > >
> > > Are you saying that it is unacceptable to try to register domain names
> > > *unless* you have a trademark or real company that connects you
> explicitly
> > > to the name? That's a new argument on me. What about generic domain
> names
> > > etc.?
> > >
> > > Lee
> > >
> > > P.S. Thanks!
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: Paul Chvostek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > To: DomainGuideBook.com <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2001 12:43 PM
> > > Subject: Re: Domain held up at Network Solutions
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > What I'm saying is that regardless of the paper trail that has to be
> > > > generated for the acquisition of this domain, giving money to NSI is
> > > > unfortunately going to be a part of it.
> > > >
> > > > If the former domain holder cannot be reached and the domain is
> > > > already past expiry, and Steve has a company name or trademark
> > > > paperwork that identifies the connection between himself and either
> > > > the domain or the company name on the domain, the procedure to get
> > > > control of the domain is well documented. He pays the $35 to NSI,
> > > > does a FAX authorization to change the admin contact to a valid
> > > > email address, then authorizes the registrar change. I've done it
> > > > a number of times for customers who "left" previous ISPs without
> > > > securing their old email addresses.
> > > >
> > > > And if Steve *doesn't* have a trademark or real company that actually
> > > > warrants the use of the domain, it would of course be unacceptable to
> > > > do all this just to squat. But that's a different discussion.
> > > >
> > > > The August 10th decision doesn't eliminate the process of selling an
> > > > already registered domain to someone else, as long as NSI's policies
> > > > are followed and their paper trail is complete. That's how it's
> always
> > > > been, and a change in policy isn't going to deter those of us who know
> > > > how to read the instructions.
> > > >
> > > > Good article, by the way.
> > > >
> > > > p
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Aug 21, 2001 at 11:41:32AM +0700, DomainGuideBook.com wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I think Steve was saying that this isn't his domain, just a domain
> he is
> > > > > interested in acquiring, hence paying $35 to NetSol isn't really
> going
> > > to
> > > > > help much.
> > > > >
> > > > > > > If I am able to get it does the original owner have a right to
> take
> > > it
> > > > > back,
> > > > > > > (nothing was ever done with the site)?
> > > > >
> > > > > Not unless they have a trademark on it, and even then it isn't
> certain
> > > they
> > > > > could get it back.
> > > > >
> > > > > > > Any tips trick or techniques would be appreciated.
> > > > >
> > > > > If it is a valuable generic name, you could be competing with
> hundreds
> > > of
> > > > > domain speculators for the name. But that's not a big issue at the
> > > moment,
> > > > > because NetSol have suspended their 'batch release' of expired
> domains.
> > > See
> > > > > this article for further info:
> > > > >
> > > > > Domain Name Goldrush Part 4 - Expiring Domains Industry on Hold
> > > > > http://www.ecommercebase.com/article/526
> > > > >
> > > > > Lee Hodgson
> > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > >
> > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > From: Paul Chvostek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > > To: Steve Perrott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > > Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > > Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2001 11:13 AM
> > > > > Subject: Re: Domain held up at Network Solutions
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Whatever you do, don't convince NSI to "delete" the domain from
> their
> > > > > > database -- somebody else will snap it up before you can register
> it,
> > > > > > and you'll lose out.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Sad to say, your best bet is almost certainly to pay NSI their $35
> for
> > > > > > the year, and as soon as the expiry date is revised, get the frig
> away
> > > > > > from them.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I don't know what dollar figure you put on an hour of your time,
> but
> > > if
> > > > > > you're considering an hour of time just to be on hold on NSI's 800
> #,
> > > > > > you've almost certainly eaten the $35, and they have *no*
> procedures
> > > to
> > > > > > allow you to guarantee the continued availability of a domain if
> they
> > > > > > can't expect any money from you.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Mon, Aug 20, 2001 at 08:28:26PM -0700, Steve Perrott wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I am trying to get a domain that is being held by Network
> Solutions
> > > that
> > > > > > > expired in April of this year. This is about 4 months later
> that
> > > the
> > > > > domain
> > > > > > > hasn't been paid for, there is not a site there and I would like
> any
> > > > > inside
> > > > > > > info on how to get it.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I have been told that it may be held up for as long as 3 years.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > If I am able to get it does the original owner have a right to
> take
> > > it
> > > > > back,
> > > > > > > (nothing was ever done with the site)?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Any tips trick or techniques would be appreciated.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Steve
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Paul Chvostek
> > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > > > Operations / Development / Abuse / Whatever vox: +1 416
> > > 598-0000
> > > > > > IT Canada
> > > http://www.it.ca/
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Paul Chvostek
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > Operations / Development / Abuse / Whatever vox: +1 416
> 598-0000
> > > > IT Canada
> http://www.it.ca/
> > > >
> >
> > --
> > Paul Chvostek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Operations / Development / Abuse / Whatever vox: +1 416 598-0000
> > IT Canada http://www.it.ca/
> >
--
Paul Chvostek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Operations / Development / Abuse / Whatever vox: +1 416 598-0000
IT Canada http://www.it.ca/
