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

[George Kirikos <icann+rap@xxxxxxxx>]

Hello,

On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 6:05 AM, Roland Perry wrote:
> the regulator as the result of some misbehaviour. The BoR does not cancel
> the domain registration (as would be required by that registry's T&C).
>
> Does the failure to cancel the domain amount to registration abuse?
>
> Would it be mitigating circumstances if they removed their website and
> arranged for emails to bounce (ie didn't *use* the registration) but
> nevertheless still insisted not to cancel the registration.

I would say that failure to cancel the domain is an "abuse", however
it would not be a "registration abuse."

That "T&C" would be terms and conditions of "use" for the period after
the creation date. e.g. one part of the T&C might be that during the
life of the domain name, any website must have an EV SSL certificate.
If one violated that term, one would be in breach of the terms of
"use."

When you used the example of removing their website and arranging for
emails to bounce (e.g. by eliminating the nameservers of the domain),
you call that "didn't use the registration." Not using something is a
kind of "use", just like the concept of "passive holding" is a kind of
"use" (i.e. nonuse!) that can be used to meet the 2nd bad faith test
in the UDRP context (where one has to prove bad faith use, i.e.
passive holding = bad faith use).

So, in conclusion, the hypothetical would be an abuse, but one that's
out of scope of the narrow scope of this workgroup.

Sincerely,

George Kirikos
http://www.leap.com/