At 8/7/01 11:19 AM, William X. Walsh wrote:
>The fact is that Afilias said from the start they were not policing
>sunrise registrations.
>
>Sunrise periods should never have been adopted in my opinion.
>
>But I don't know how much plainer Afilias could have been about saying
>"We aren't going to check the validity of sunrise applications" from
>the start.
I know that, and I don't expect them to. It doesn't mean a system
couldn't have been designed that would lower the incentive for cheating.
My point was that given that they aren't going to police the
applications, forcing the challenger to pay $75 with no hope of gaining
anything from it is the wrong choice.
For example, the minimum registration period for sunrise could have been
ten years, resulting in a $60 fee to the registry. Then if a domain was
challenged and found to be fraudulent, the $60 could have been forfeited
and used to pay the WIPO fee, resulting in a disincentive for filing
fraudulent applications with no disincentive for the challenger (of
course, if it was found to be a valid registration, the challenger would
pay the $295 or whatever, meaning you'd see few fraudulent challenges,
too).
It wouldn't be perfect, but at least there would be SOME disincentive to
fraud. As it stands, there's none at all.
--
Robert L Mathews, Tiger Technologies
