Re: [gnso-rap-dt] Reverse Domain Name Hijacking as a Registration Abuse

[George Kirikos <icann+rap@xxxxxxxx>]

Hi James,

On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 12:54 PM, James M. Bladel<jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Thank you, George.  The materials you've provided represent excellent
> collection of resources.  (As always!) :)

Thanks for the kind words. :)

> My only remaining question is one of scope:  Under what circumstances
> would Reverse Hijacking (which is an abuse of process governing existing
> names) be considered a "registration" abuse, versus a
> "post-registration" or "use" abuse?

I agree 100% that this scope issue should be discussed. It does happen
past the "creation date" of a domain name. However, there are
currently other items in the 5 page PDF:

https://st.icann.org/data/workspaces/reg-abuse-wg/attachments/registration_abuse_policies_working_group:20090827124146-0-1700/original/RAPWG%20Abuse%20Categories%20and%20Types%20-%2027%20August%202009.pdf

that also occur post-creation date. e.g. Fake Renewal notices,
Cybersquatting (which requires "use"), and Diversion (use of meta tags
and title to manipulate search) as just 3 examples pulled from the
document. So, depending on what decision we make as to "scope" on some
of these other abuses, we should apply the identical standard/criteria
to Reverse Domain Name Hijacking.

While it does take place after the original owner's "creation date",
it does take place *before* the reverse hijacker's desired "new
registration date" (i.e. sometimes  a transfer to a new entity is
considered to be a "new registration", although that's up to debate,
because depending on how the assignment takes place, one can argue
that it's not a new registration at all, but a pure assignment of all
rights; e.g. a TM registered in 1954 with a first use date in 1955
that is sold/assigned to a new entity still maintains all its rights
and priority dates, even if the transfer was in 2009; it's not
considered a "new" TM with a priority of 2009, in other words, the
priority of 1955 is preserved fully; this is something that might
ultimately be left to courts to decide).

Sincerely,

George Kirikos
416-588-0269
http://www.leap.com/