| | At Large Membership and Civil Society Participation in ICANN |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
|
.US Registry Deleting Domain Names Retroactively!!
|
Log in/Create an Account
| Top
| 41 comments
|
Search Discussion
|
|
|
|
The Fine Print:
The following comments are owned by whoever posted them.
We are not responsible for them in any way.
|
|
 |
|
Bret Fausett pointed me to this ICANN Blog item and this .us policy, which I admit I'd forgotten about. I have some doubts about the legality of this policy, although the fact that its been laundered through a contractor (the usual US-domain-name-policy strategy) makes a lawsuit that much more complex and uncertain. Indeed, if there's no evidence that the policy was encouraged either overtly or covertly by the government (and I wasn't paying any attention to this issue, so I have no idea what the facts are), then the NSI precedent suggests that a court would not find this to be illegal.
My meta-view remains the same old boring song: none of this would matter if there were a constant stream of new TLDs with varying policies. In that world, we'd appreciate having a few TLDs with restrictive policies, even (perish the thought) a few with *web content restrictions* they would police. If there were a multiplicity of competitive open and closed domains, this just wouldn't be an issue.
|
|
|
|
[ Reply to This | Parent
]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It seems likely the policy was encouraged by the government, from the link given above to .us policy, it states in part:We regret this late notice, but this policy has been developed in direct consultation with the U.S. Department of Commerce in a very short timeframe. While it was short notice, registrants were (or reasonably should have been) aware that they could subsequently lose their domain names. I do think this is even wonkier and less fair than NetSol's former practice of pre-screening out all such strings. -g
|
|
|
|
[ Reply to This | Parent
]
|
|
|
|
|
I would not release many "within a short period of time". I'd set up a clear and predictable schedule for new ones coming on stream. Say, one a month for the foreseeable future. People would quickly be trained to expect new TLDs. More importantly the speculative value would drop to near zero, cutting cybersquatting.
I think it's likely that some registry somewhere will fail someday. That's why good data escrow is one of the ICANN rules I support, and why I'm so puzzled it hasn't been put into practice. It seems almost certain to me that were a registry to go under, its client base would be an asset that other registries would want to buy, so the odds are good that clients would not be harmed at all.
|
|
|
|
[ Reply to This | Parent
]
|
| | | 1 reply beneath your current threshold. |
Privacy Policy: We will not knowingly give out your personal data -- other than identifying your postings in the way you direct by setting your configuration options -- without a court order. All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their
respective owner. The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008 by ICANNWatch.Org. This web site was made with Slashcode, a web portal system written in perl. Slashcode is Free Software released under the GNU/GPL license.
You can syndicate our headlines in .rdf, .rss, or .xml. Domain registration services donated by DomainRegistry.com
|
