Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 18.104.22.168
Forum Moderators: bill
joined:Mar 3, 2003
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.
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.
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.
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.
It's all just words - or is it?
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.
"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.
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.
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...]
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?
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.
How heavily it will all be policed is another question.