Jeff Williams' anti-Warehousing idea (Re: Warehousing, TM violations & the new gTLD's)

["andi payn" <payn@null.net>]

Me:
>> 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.

Jeff:
> Two domain names period.  Irrespective of time.  And only by one
>entity, to use your term.

OK, that's a little different than what I first read into it, but it makes
sense. It solves the problem that I mentioned in the next two paragraphs,
for one. And any entity with a legitimate reason to own more than two domain
names probably should have enough capital to pay up-front, as long as they
can be assured of the domain name being available relatively soon. I think
part of the problem is that, under the current NSI system, your domain name
can take anywhere from one hour to a few weeks to be turned on, even if you
pay up front--and who would pay up front in such circumstances? I'm assuming
that any replacement system would solve that problem (if not, there could be
a slight change--hold of on processing the credit card charge, check
deposit, etc. until the domain name is actually ready to be activated--but
something like that is much more complicated than just doing things
efficiently in the first place).

Jeff:
>... 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.

What qualifies as use? Turning on two domain name servers and two mail
servers, as in the current NSI rules? Mind you, I can't think of a better
definition (Does someone have to have a web page to have an SLD? On the
other hand, can they get by with just a web page without email--e.g., if
they have mail-to forms?)

>  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.

I agree with that fairness must prevail; I was just trying to see how to
actually ensure that your system would help to ensure that it would. Now
that you've solved the issue I brought up in what seems to be a fair way, I
don't see any other problems. Of course I haven't read all my mail yet;
someone else might have already...

You know, this is one of the few suggestions that I could see being
implemented in the near future. I'm sure some of the ISO TLD registrars (or
NSI for that matter) would enjoy getting more of their money up front... So
maybe we can actually see this idea tested in real life.