Re: don heath's comments

[Ron Fitzherbert <ron@penguin.net>]

Or, even a "better" <sic> way would be for me to agree to do the DNS for
the company (for a one-time fee of allocating it to them) and then a
yearly fee for maintenance -- perpetual "black-mail".

Transfers are going to happen (in one form or another) -- and I don't
think anyone wants to do anything to limit legitimate transfers -- rather
it's the speculators and hoarders that most people are concerned with --
and "legal" methods of dealing with it are going to be extremely hard in
the current environment (world-wide usage) -- the only way you'll be able
to force a legal solution at this time is if ALL of the parties are
"legally" under on jurisdiction (be it the US, or Switzerland or the
Bahamas), which would mean that only companies registered to do business
(and legally sign binding contracts in that locality) would be able to
participate -- and I doubt many people would like that solution.

I'm not sure what the solution will be -- the "best" I can come up with at
the moment would look something like this:

"A certain set of rules apply to the ownership <sic> and transfer of
domain names -- any violation of these rules will result in the immediate
revokation of ALL domains ever registered to your organiztion (whether
they are still under your control or not -- and the permanent banning of
your organization from access to any future domain names.  Domain names
are not sold by the registeries -- they are licensed under the terms of
this agreemet and are terminatable by the registry authority at any time."

Or something to that effect.

Ron

On Sun, 24 Nov 1996, Kent Crispin wrote:

> Hank Nussbacher allegedly said:
> > 
> [...]
> > My idea - don't allow trading.  If one can't transfer ownership, then
> > the value of a certain DN is much less and the "brokers" would go out
> > of business and the "hoarders" would have nothing to do.  I know it 
> > is not a perfect solution - there are valid cases where people want
> > to transfer ownership.  I would like to hear opinions for or against
> > this idea.
> 
> Perhaps this would limit it some, but I don't think it would eliminate
> it.  Instead of trading ual.com to united airlines, I would just agree
> to stop paying the internic, and let "ual" get back to unassigned. 
> This is less convenient, for sure, and opens the possibility that 
> somebody else would step in and grab ual.  But I think there would be 
> a clear deterrent effect.
> 
> You wouldn't have to totally disallow trading to get the same effect
> -- you could just make it difficult by requiring documentation and
> that appropriate conditions be met. 
> 
> > I also would like to any other ideas.  The IAHC likes hearing ideas
> > from the list.
> 
> Hire high powered lawyers to come up with a model licensing agreement
> for registries that they can have their customers sign before getting
> a domain name.  (This is a recursive application of the rule for TLDs
> :-)
> 
> The entire model would be changed from the notion that a registry
> *sells* a domain to the notion that a registry *licenses* a domain.  So
> the IANA would license some registry the use of the name .religion, the
> licensee of the .religion domain would license catholic.religion to the 
> Vatican, and the Vatican could license subdomains to all kinds 
> of organizations that met its standards for whatever.  You can 
> imagine breach of contract cases like this -- the Vatican sells a 
> domain to a baseball team -- giants.catholic.religion, and the 
> licensee of .religion files a breach of contract suit against the 
> Vatican because the license signed by the Vatican guaranteed that all 
> subdomains would be related to religion....
> 
> Sure is getting deep out here.
> 
> -- 
> Kent Crispin				"No reason to get excited",
> kent@songbird.com,kc@llnl.gov		the thief he kindly spoke...
> PGP fingerprint:   B6 04 CC 30 9E DE CD FE  6A 04 90 BB 26 77 4A 5E
> 

  ---------------- Ronald J. Fitzherbert, President ---------------
       Flying Penguin Productions Limited - Arlington, VA (USA)
                Interactive Electronic Communications
           1.703.358.9219 (voice) 1.703.522.2798 (telefax)
  -------------------- http://www.penguin.net/ --------------------