RE: [gnso-pednr-dt] Another Article of Interest

["Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Mike,

Liaison hat on:

Interesting article. But this politician did not successfully register a
name and then lose it after expiry. He has never been able to register
it. I fail to see that he would be any more or less happy if he couldn't
get it because of an expired name auction, a drop catch auction, or a
registry auction (e.g. WLS/CLS). And of course he could bid on it, or
use the UDRP. In any event, I don't see this type of issue as within the
WG's current scope of recovery of post-expiry names.

Registrar hat on:

At least for Go Daddy, we don't claim that there is *only* anecdotal
evidence. We assert from our experience that it is mostly anecdotal and
have few actual complaints. Those that we do have are usually resolved
by recovery of the name by the complainant. Our concern is that we will
end up further regulated over an issue that is causing no more harm, if
any, than any alternative. Hopefully, as we move forward with structural
improvements, some threshold can be established for *reasonable evidence
of actionable harm* (for lack of a better phrase) before PDPs are
initiated.

Tim

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [gnso-pednr-dt] Another Article of Interest
From: "Michael D. Palage" <michael@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, September 16, 2009 6:47 am
To: "'PEDNR'" <gnso-pednr-dt@xxxxxxxxx>


Hello All:

Another article of interest dealing with a lawsuit involving an
apparently
expired domain name up for auction that was previously registered to a
high
profile Indian politician, see
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/news/india/Jaitley-moves-HC-after-US-site
-puts-domain-name-on-sale/articleshow/5015685.cms 

Now because this appears to be an active litigation, Paul Diaz may not
be
able to comment on this matter, but it would help to understand if this
lawsuit involves subject matter falling within the scope of this working
group, or if the news reporter has failed to accurately describe all the
facts within the article as sometimes/often happens.

I respect that a number of registrars remain adamant about there being
no
proof of any substantial problems within the marketplace, and that the
incidents that formed the basis of the ALAC Issues Report were mere
antidotal. However, news reports like this do seem to indicate the
existence
of at least some problems within the marketplace, or at a minimum the
need
to better educate registrants to prevent frivolous lawsuits. That is why
I
think it is critical to find out about the facts in the case to make a
determination if its subject matter falls within the purview of this
working
group's charter.

Best regards,

Michael