Re: [ga] Verisign rushes to roll out typo-squatting system on Monday

[Dan Steinberg <synthesis@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Karl,

No arguements with you what you wrote.  It's just that my comment was 
specifically directed at the wording in George's post.
It seems to me that if there is a value for TTL that is undefined and 
set by different parties at will without even a necessary expectation 
that a TTL be a particular value for that party...then the act of 
calling it a 'technical standard' is deceptive, no? To me, a technical 
standard, that phrase itself implies something....something you can sink 
your teeth into, have expectations about...maybe even one day write code 
to implement something.  How do you write code for a TTL that not only 
varies by entity, but the existing 'standard' does not even mandate that 
the TTL must be a certain value for any entity at all times?

Same thing for abusive monopolist.  If someone is an abusive monopolost 
I want to see how this particular act is evidence of it.

Sorry to be so picky but you  know, that's normal for me. I like to be 
very precise when trashing anyone :-P


Karl Auerbach wrote:

> > > "gTLD Registry operators WILL return NXDOMAIN for ALL DNS queries for
> > > which there is not a REGISTERED domain name."
> > >      
>
>  
>
> > what existing technical standards are you suggesting are being broken by 
> > the "abusive monopolist" ?
> >    
>
> Well, if queries for unregistered domains are returning records, those
> records have TTL (time to live) values.
>
> And if someone comes along and registers that name, the usability of that
> name is contaminated for at least the duration of that TTL, usually
> longer.
>
> The typical TTLs used these days run from a few days to weeks - the value 
> is set by the registry - .com is running, I believe, with a TTL of about 
> 48 hours.
>
> Now this means that a buyer of a domain name contract may find that he/she 
> has bought tarnished goods, particularly if the prior records have had the 
> effect of leading web clients to a registrar/registry picked address 
> during the period of the client's registration.
>
> This is sort of like buying a new car and discovering that the dealer had
> been using the car before the sale and that the dealer then defers
> delivery for a few days and uses those days to put on a few hundred
> additional miles.
>
> There seem to be multiple remedies - the first is to ban the practice.  
> The second is to have the registrar or registry forefit damages to the
> customers.  The minimal measure of these damages should be 2/365ths
> (representing the two days occupied by the TTL) - let's round it up to 1%
> - of the yearly registration fee.  A better measure is based on lost
> opportunity costs caused by the inability of a new registrant to come up
> to speed with a fully usable new domain registration due to the seller's
> ill behaviour.  Another measure, and I see no reason why these different
> measures can not be cumulative, is the value of the benefit that this
> practice gives to the registries/registrars.
>
> There is no doubt in my own mind that any registry/registrar that sells
> domain name contracts to unwitting buyers for names that have been used by
> the registry or registrar during the period of non registration is
> engaging in a deceptive business practices.  Whether my opinion on this is 
> merely my own opinion or something of greater weight is a question that 
> will have to be answered in the light of specific facts and specific 
> parties in specific jurisdictions.
>
> 		--karl--
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>  

--
Dan Steinberg

SYNTHESIS:Law & Technology
35, du Ravin		phone: (613) 794-5356
Chelsea, Quebec		fax:   (819) 827-4398
J9B 1N1                 e-mail:synthesis@xxxxxxxxxxxx