New auDA published policies - misspellings and sale of domain name

No more typosquatting

[anallawalla]

From: [auda.org.au...]

1.2 Under clauses 10.1 and 10.2 of the Registrar Agreement, accredited registrars are required to enter into a binding and enforceable Registrant Agreement (domain name licence) with a registrant which contains a number of minimum provisions, including that the registrant must not deliberately register misspellings of another entity’s company or brand name in order to trade on the reputation of another entity’s goodwill.

And
[auda.org.au...]

1.2 Under clauses 10.1 and 10.2 of the Registrar Agreement, accredited registrars are required to enter into a binding and enforceable Registrant Agreement (domain name licence) with a registrant which contains a number of minimum provisions, including:

a) the registrant must not, directly or indirectly, through registration or use of its domain name or otherwise, register a domain name for the purpose of selling it; and

b) the registrant must not in any way transfer or purport to transfer a proprietary right in any domain name registration.

[bill]

Good catch anallawalla.
I wonder whether this will start a trend among other TLDs?

[Woz]

I'm tempted to say "Good catch anallawalla. I wonder whether this will start a trend among other TLDs?" but is seems someone beat me to it. ;)

Seriously, I wonder if Australia is the first to impost such regulations. Is anyone aware of any other registries imposing such restrictions?

On a country level it would certainly make sense where the domains are more rigorously controlled, but I wonder how it could be policed on open international domains. I would certainly be a good thing and start to weed out some of the squatters, but difficult to manage.

Onya
Woz

[matt21811]

"b) the registrant must not in any way transfer or purport to transfer a proprietary right in any domain name registration."

Can some one explain what this means please?

[Tom_Dalton]

"b) the registrant must not in any way transfer or purport to transfer a proprietary right in any domain name registration."

I think that means a company in Australia can't buy domain names on behalf of other companies that want a domain name but can't get it. (Sometimes called "proxy registration.")

You're not supposed to be able to get a country-level domain unless you actually live or do business in that country and have a business license in that country, but often you can find a company to register the name for you and then run it on your behalf.

Guess they're cracking down on that, too. Probably for the best.

[excell]

Personally I don't see it swinging into action as yet. (what happens with all the past cases?) It certainly puts more responsibility on the registrar though and they obviously need to get their end with the registrant set up a little tighter than we are seeing currently.

It's all just words - or is it?

[Psazf]

Hi All,
I'm from Portugal.
Here we have also the ".com.pt" that also can not be sold or transfered to others!
PSAZF

[bill]

There is something similar in Japan for the .co.jp domain names. Registered companies can only have one, and only one .co.jp domain, and you can only get that domain after an exhausting application process. However, this doesn't extend to the second level .jp where everything goes (relatively speaking).

This .au restriction seems unique in that it's trying to regulate out a certain type of domain buying. I too would like to know whether this has been enforced. This could set a precedent for other CCTLDs.

[George Cooper]

"b) the registrant must not in any way transfer or purport to transfer a proprietary right in any domain name registration."

Can some one explain what this means please?

Basically, you can't sell a domain name. It's always been like this as far as I can recall in the .au namespace, or atleast since auDA took over administration from Robert Elz (aka KRE) and MelbourneIT.

[matt21811]

George,

what this effectively does is ban me from creating a web site and content, work to generate some traffic then revenue and finnally selling the whole thing.

Imagine the phone company banning the sale of your pizza delivery business because you are not allowed to sell your phone number to someone else.

[DoingItWell]

DK-hostmaster who handles the .dk tld is actively taking away domains from typosquatters and giving them to the companies whose names are/were being preyed on. This typosquatting was apparently primarily done by Panamanian and Austrian companies.

[excell]

Just want to clear something up here. You cannot "sell" a domain name because you cannot own a domain name.

If you build up a viable business website you can sell the business and transfer the domain name licence to the new business owner.

The value of the business and goodwill created by your efforts should not differ in the transaction.

Read this section:
2. PROHIBITION ON SALE OF DOMAIN NAME BY REGISTRANT

2.1 There are no proprietary rights in a domain name....

Adding: here is a link to transfer info [auda.org.au...]

[matt21811]

Excel,

The value in a web only business is retained entirely by the domain name. If you dont have use of the name then the business becomes worthless. You will have no traffic.
If you cant sell the name, you cant sell the business.

Yes I understand that I dont own a domain name anymore than I own a phone number but I see no real difference between saying "sell a domain name" and "transfer the domain name licence" for the purposes of this discusion. These rules either prevent you from selling a domain name to someone else or they dont. I just want to know, which is it?

[excell]

You can transfer a domain name when you sell the business provided the requirements for a transfer are met. Of course the domain name is important to the business you have created and you should set your pricing for the sale of the business accordingly.

I guess what it really means - if you have no business (or valuable website) and are just holding a domain name you cannot sell it. If you don't want it any more you just give it up and it becomes available on a "first in best dressed" basis.

[Chris_D]

Maybe its just a coincidence - but does anyone else think that [webmasterworld.com...] situation could have been some of the inspiration for the AUDA to make these changes?

[bill]

I don't think that's a coincidence at all. The Ansearch debacle sounds like it was probably the primary reason for the implementation of this rule. The .au domain buffs will have to confirm this though. ;)

[excell]

Pretty sure it might have been, it was one of the largest cases they had seen. I think they have made some good progress in tightening things up. There is more accountability placed on the registrant and the registrar.

How heavily it will all be policed is another question.