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