RE: [gnso-rap-dt] Registration vs. Use / Scope Issues -- Roland's question about eligibility criteria

["Greg Aaron" <gaaron@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Would the failure to cancel roland.bank amount to registration abuse?
I think such cases are covered by relevant contracts.  See my post here:
http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-rap-dt/msg00179.html 

"Registry-registrar-registrant contracts (or a terms of service
referenced in the contracts) may spell out explicitly what is allowed and
not while that contract is in force, and what the consequences of
non-compliance might be.  

There are many examples of eligibility criteria.  A few off the top of my
head: To register a .MUSEUM name, one must be a museum as per the registry's
eligibility requirements.  .BIZ registration terms state that .BIZ domain
names are to be "used primarily for bona fide business or commercial
purposes."  .MOBI Web sites must adhere to certain formatting requirements.
Many ccTLDs have "nexus" requirements, requiring registrants to be citizens
or residents in the relevant country.

As a practical matter, non-compliance is sometimes discovered long after the
domain name is created, and it seems that registrants can fall out of
eligibility in some TLDs.  I assume that as long as a registration contract
is in effect, it can be enforced. 

Here's something to consider: the difference between "abusive" and
"noncompliant."  Abuse entails some harm to someone, while some noncompliant
registrations might not hurt anyone.  An abuse issue might be common and
shared across TLDs, while an eligibility/compliance issue might be
particular or unique to one specific TLD.  

I invite comment from others, especially from the registrars, registry
operators, and legal experts who may have encountered these issues.

All best,
--Greg"



-----Original Message-----
From: Roland Perry [mailto:roland@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Friday, May 29, 2009 6:06 AM
To: gnso-rap-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [gnso-rap-dt] Registration vs. Use / Scope Issues


In message 
<716d09d70905281916q347cef35x952bc7da6ed389ea@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, at 
22:16:33 on Thu, 28 May 2009, George Kirikos <icann+rap@xxxxxxxx> writes
>"However, the fact that the disputed domain name was registered before
>Complainant had trademark rights in the FULL TERM mark precludes a
>finding of bad faith under Policy 4(a)(iii)."

[etc]

This covers the issue of reverse-hijacking in the Trademark space.

But TM issues are not the *only* form of abuse we are considering.

(In fact, we have barely started the process of considering the document 
which lists various candidates.)

Let me try to broaden the discussion with an example where the public 
might rely upon the registration of a domain name (and would therefore 
likely suffer a loss if the basis for the registration became invalid).

A hypothetical gtld .bank, for organisations which have an appropriate 
licence from their financial regulator. The Bank of Roland has such a 
licence, and registers roland.bank, but some months later is "struck 
off" by 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.
-- 
Roland Perry