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

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

Andi,

andi payn wrote:
> 
> 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).

  Well sometimes you have to use a 2x4 to get their attention.  Kinda
like some mules I have known.  Dave Crocker?  You there?  LOL!
> 
> 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?)

  The NSI defination is just fine as a qualification as far as I am
concerned.  I would add that they must have a page up and show use
for at least 30 days.  You must also have contact E-mail, not a web 
E-mail form.  Though that can be included but not as a qualifying factor
for usage.
> 
> >  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.

  This suggestion was made over two years ago.  No new or inovative
at all.  I added some language, but little more.

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