> > THE DAY THE THING EXPIRED AND WASN'T RENEWED was the day the domain lost
> > 'ownership'. The fact that it WAS registered through Netsol
> does NOT give
> > them the right to hold onto it. Domains are in the public
> domain, they do
> > not 'belong' to Netsol to rent, nor do they 'belong' to the
> person renting
> > them. All I'm buying is the exclusive right to USE that name
> for a year, or
> > more.
>
> And you buy the right to use it from the registrar. The registrar, in
> turn, buys the right to let you use it from the Registry. They pay
> that fee, and the decision then is their's as to how to handle it.
> The domain is not "public domain."
Interesting suggestion, but surely flawed?
"Not 'public domain'" would suggest that "The Registry" OWNS every possible
alphanumeric combination available - even ones which have never been thought
of yet or likely never will. It further suggests that the word 'Yahoo' is
owned by the registry by virtue of the fact that someone registered it, and
that the word jhdblgsfhdl would suddenly become the property of the registry
forever, were I to register it as a domain name?
Surely the registry themselves, hold no 'ownership' rights of ANY domain
name. Domain names are (typically) 'words' - you can rent exclusive use of
it in the 'Internet' context, but you cannot 'own' it. No-one can, hence my
(possibly incorrect) assumption of 'public domain'.
Is it perhaps the case that Netsol ARE paying for the 'next year' of the
domain, pre-empting receipt of payment from the previous registrant? Even
so, there would be no sense in them continuing to pay the registry for a
domain from which they in turn were receiving no payments unless, indeed, it
was their intention to hold it hostage (making the previous suggestion of
hitting them on the basis of cybersquatting more interesting).
Furthermore even if this IS the case, it makes absolutely NO sense for them
to not sell it to someone else after the previous registrant's lease
expired. Are we to believe that they are keeping it 'because they paid for
it'? If I was a shareholder I'd be pretty concerned about them wasting my
money thus.
Financially, it makes no sense whatsoever to NOT lease it to someone else,
therefore it is a reasonable assumption that they have other intentions. No
business is going to deliberately NOT sell something unless they have a
pretty good reason for not selling it. Can Netsol at least explain what that
reason is?
What they're doing in effect is deliberately rendering the domain in
question unusable and unregisterable which is hardly in the best interests
of anyone and must break someone's rules, somewhere - surely?
What's the OpenSRS policy on this, will the domains be registerable by
someone else if the present registrant lets it expire?
Regards
Bob
