Michael Sondow wrote:
>
> John B. Reynolds a �crit:
> >
> > The actual language of Section 9.e is a follows:
> >
> > e. The registrar would register SLDs to SLD holders only for
> fixed periods.
> > At the conclusion of the registration period, failure to pay a
> renewal fee
> > within the time specified in a second notice or reminder would result in
> > cancellation of the registration.
> >
> > This is not significantly different from existing practice. If
> you do not
> > renew iciiu.org or Esther does not renew edventure.com, they
> will expire.
>
> It has to be taken together with "Suspension, cancellation, or transfer of
> SLD assigned by mistake or where there is a dispute." If the trademarks
> people have enough power in the DNSO, they will write the
> provisions so that
> the burden of justifying the extension of the domain name is on
> the holder.
> That is the clear intent throughout the WIPO report. If the domain name
> holding is finite, and the burden of justification for extending it is on
> the registrant, no one will feel safe with their domain name
> unless the have
> trademarked it and furthermore can afford to fight about it in court with
> the first comer. This is just an extension of the NSI dispute
> policy, a way
> of making the registration of domain names a tenuous privilege,
> "granted" by
> an unwilling semi-police authority, instead of a right.
>
You're attacking the wrong section. Section IV.9.g.ix is what you should be
complaining about:
ix. The SLD holder shall agree that its registration of the SLD name shall
be subject to suspension, cancellation, or transfer as a result of any ICANN
procedure, or by a registrar or registry administrator procedure approved by
ICANN, (a) to correct mistakes by the registrar or registry administrator in
registering the name or (b) for the resolution of disputes concerning the
SLD name.
This, not IV.9.e, is the hook for bringing in the WIPO dispute procedure.
It would operate in precisely the same manner and cause exactly the same
level of concern about the tenuousness of domain holders' right to keep
their names as it does now even if IV.9.e did not exist and domain tenancy
were otherwise permanent.
All Section IV.9.e does is formalize the existing practice of virtually all
for-profit registries of requiring periodic (usually annual) renewals. It
also introduces a small amount of protection for domain holders by requiring
two renewal notices prior to cancellation.
