Re: Warehousing, TM violations & the new gTLD's

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Andi,

andi payn wrote:
> 
> Duane said:
> >> I'll tell you something simpler and more d-able that will reduce
> >> warehousing -- simply require payment up-front.
> 
> Jeff replied:
> >  This would certianly do what you would like to see.  But it would
> >also impose a unfair sometime hardship on everyone else.  That iw why
> >befor I have recomended that some modification of this be done.
> >Here is an example.
> >
> >1.) Any wanting to register more than two Domain names in any
> >    catagory must pay 50% on the ther first two in advance and
> >    80 percent aon all others up to 10 domains. Beyond that 10
> >    domain names 100% must be paid in advance for the remaining
> >    number beyond 10.
> 
> You know what; I take back my 100% agreement with Duane Little on this issue
> (all of a few minutes ago); I think that Jeff Williams' plan, or some
> similar variant, may make more sense. Two things I'm not sure about:
> 
> Under the proposal, entities that have only two domain names don't have to
> pay anything up front, right?

  Correct.  An number of varients and other requirnments could predicate
that they do pay some small or large fee depending on the size and
financial
capability of the purchaser, excluding individuals with no corp. 
connections of course.  But essentialy yes.
> 
> Also, does two (or 10) domain names registered by the same entity mean two
> domain names owned by the entity, two domain names being registered in a
> current batch, two domain names in a certain amount of time, or two domain
> names that are as-yet unpaid.

 Two domain names period.  Irrespective of time.  And only by one
entity, to use your term.
> 
> I personally think that the last of the four alternatives makes the most
> sense, but it makes things somewhat more confusing. If I own two domain
> names right now, and I've held them for a long time and of course I've
> already paid for them, I shouldn't have to pay in advance for a third,
> right?

  No, unfortunatly, you should.  This should be applied wehather you
already own two domains or not.  Sorry.  >;)  Just think that is fair
is all.

> However, allowing this would open the door for me to get around the
> three-new-domain-names-at-once issue. If it costs me 50%+50%+80% up front to
> register three domain names, I could just register the first, pay for it in
> full, then register the next two with nothing up front--meaning I only need
> to pay a total of 100% of a single registration up front rather than 180%.

  But I would not what I was meaning does not allow for that.  In
addition
though I did not clarify this, but believed that most would assume it,
you must pay for all domains in full within a reasonable time period,
and must agree to USE those domains within no longer than one calander
year form registration of those domains.  Only after usage of an 
period of 90 days, lets say, can you than resell or transfer that
that domain name, or return it and recieve a partial refund for the
remaining grace period.  

  Now, I know I left alot of this language out, but I did so on 
perpose to see what kind of responses I would see.  It is apperent
that every "i" and "t" and consideration must be specified.  I 
obviously made the assumption that most would of course see that
fairness must prevail. 

  Thank you very much for pointing this out to me Andi.  It is
very estute of you to bring these questions to the fore.  I 
appritiate it and your compliment.  >;) 
> 
> Anyway, I like the idea, however the final execution works out.
> 
> --andi payn

Regards,
-- 
Jeffrey A. Williams
DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java Development Eng.
Information Eng. Group. IEG. INC. 
Phone :913-294-2375 (v-office)
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com