Re: [gnso-rap-dt] Registration vs. Use / Scope Issues

[Roland Perry <roland@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

In message <0xPVhr7NFKCKFA3v@xxxxxxxxxxx>, at 23:06:05 on Mon, 11 May 
2009, Roland Perry <roland@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes
> > Consensus view: While the transfer of a domain name to a third party
> > does amount to a new registration, a mere renewal of a domain name
> > does not amount to registration for the purposes of determining bad
> > faith. Registration in bad faith must occur at the time the current
> > registrant took possession of the domain name."
> The [alleged] abuse may not arise until later, for example the case of 
> myspace.co.uk where there was a protracted action over an alleged 
> abuse, despite the fact that the original registration predated Mr 
> Murdoch's "Myspace" company by several years.
... and the "bad faith" may arise later, if a domain registration which 
requires some kind of 'qualification' is not cancelled when the 
'qualification' expires.
I mentioned the .ltd.uk domains where it is necessary to have a 
registered company whose name exactly corresponds to the domain name 
(and therefore if that company is wound up, or its name changed, the 
domain should be surrendered).
Some gtlds which are at the "sponsored" end of the spectrum have 
'qualifications' already (eg .museum, .coop), and new gtlds may have 
them as well - I could imagine for example that someone applying for a 
.<city> domain might have to be a member of [something like] that City's 
Chamber of Trade, and if that membership expires, maybe it's bad faith 
not to cancel the domain registration immediately?
Finally, something to add to our table of possible abuses: what if the 
'qualification' turns out to be a forgery? While the registration was 
abusive from the moment it was made, a need arises to cancel the 
registration when the abuse comes to light. It's a bit like "False 
WHOIS", but sufficiently different to require a specific mention I 
think.
--
Roland Perry