ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives

[ga]


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

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


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





<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>