Re: [gnso-pednr-dt] Ownership of domain names: some hard questions
- To: "Michele Neylon :: Blacknight" <michele@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [gnso-pednr-dt] Ownership of domain names: some hard questions
- From: Sivasubramanian Muthusamy <isolatedn@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2009 21:38:14 +0530
Hello Michele Neylon,
On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 11:43 PM, Michele Neylon :: Blacknight
> On 10 Dec 2009, at 17:47, Sivasubramanian Muthusamy wrote:
Thank you for your response. My point is that most users wouldn't
comprehend the nuances of these agreements and half the users wouldn't
understand even the essence of these agreements. Users sign agreements
because it is part of the process of registering a domain name and
most of them do not know what they are getting into. I differ from
your opinion that all users are expected to understand these legal
documents, so bound by the terms they 'agreed' upon by their
>> It may be there in the contract, but that still does not make it a
>> fair practice.
> Define "fair practice"
> I think it's fair and reasonable that a registrar get paid for the services
> they provide.
Yes, it is very reasonable that Registrars get paid for the services
they provide. I would go one step further and state that it is
definitely reasonable for a Registrar to earn good profits.
> I think it's fair and reasonable that a registrar remind their registrants to
> renew their domains
Did I disagree on this ?
> I think it's fair and reasonable that having given registrants plenty of
Do all Registrars give the Registrants "plenty" of opportunity?
> to do this that the registrant through their inaction has given up their
> rights to those names
Inaction yes, but by the inaction how do they 'give up' their rights
to those names? By this logic, it is perfectly permissible for a bank
to absorb funds from dormant accounts and call the money from these
accounts its own.
> The analogy I would use is that of property. If I lease / rent a property for
> a period of time and don't renew the lease the landlord is free to give the
> lease to someone else.
> Why should domains be any different (assuming that there are no IP issues /
> serious crime involved)
>> Essentially this WG needs to pay attention to the
>> clauses for which a Registrant's signature is taken.
> No it doesn't
> If you feel that "all registrars" are so "terrible"
Please don't misinterpret my message and consider me as a person who
feels negatively about all Registrars. That is not true.
>then why don't you setup a registrar that uses wonderfully clear English and
>get loads of business out of it as a result?
Quite a tempting suggestion. I wouldn't easily dismiss such an opportunity.
> Or do you want all registrars to conform to some Utopian ideals and basically
> remove all essence of competition.
No, These are not utopian ideals. My point is that the business of a
Registrar is to Register names. ICANN in its first ten years has left
several tasks half-done. In the case of its 'contracts' with
Registrars, the scope of the business of a Registrar was perhaps left
undefined, which gave room for some Registrars to stretch the business
of Registration to that of the business of Trade in Names that do not
belong to them and speculation there of. ICANN has a Registrar
Accreditation Agreements and it stops there. What I would like ICANN
to do is to go one step further and pay attention to the Registrant's
Agreement with the Registrars, because in a larger sense, a Registrant
obtains the domain name from ICANN ( though the Registrar or the
Reseller ), so ICANN has a responsibility to ensure that the
Registrant gets fair terms all the way down to the last mile. In other
words, I would consider ICANN accountable for the entire deal with the
Registrant, whether the transaction is closed by the Registrar or a
> You also forget, conveniently, that not all law is the same. I am in Ireland,
> so I am governed by Irish and EU law. There may be some piece of law in place
> in Chile which gives people rights that I do not have here in Ireland.
> So would you expect registrars to cater for that?
No I don't expect Registrars to abide by the laws of all nations in
planet Earth. On the other hand I am talking about a uniform practice.
> And of course, if registrars were to raise their sale price (retail) of a
> .com domain for one year to say $500 in order to ensure that every possible
> potential registrant could be catered for and so that we could give them one
> to one sessions to explain any possibly confusing terms.
> Unless you'd like our staff to work for free?
No I don't, If by any chance it were to cost a Registrar $ 500 to
service a Registrant, I would be the first person to suggest that the
price of domains be increased to $ 1000 upwards. But your argument
here assumes that it would take $500 per domain merely to boldface
essential clauses in their web pages. It is not so valid as an
> So to summarise:
> You are working on the false assumption that all registrars are evil and out
> to get registrants
No, not at all. I am some one who rather thinks well of businessmen as
I am someone with a background in business. You are making a sweeping
> Your demands are wholly unreasonable and unrealistic (and two can play at
> that game)
'Wholly unreasonable' and 'unrealistic' ?
> Mr Michele Neylon
> Blacknight Solutions
> Hosting & Colocation, Brand Protection
> Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072
> US: 213-233-1612
> UK: 0844 484 9361
> Locall: 1850 929 929
> Fax. +353 (0) 1 4811 763
> Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty
> Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845