Sedo .in Auction

Discussion in 'General Indian Domain Name Discussion' started by wot, Apr 26, 2017.

  1. Aubits

    Aubits United States Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2009
    Messages:
    190
    Likes Received:
    134
    Trophy Points:
    43
    Couldn't agree more..this is a fundamental issue with the current rules. Need more open free market for .IN to flourish and compete with .com to some extent in India. Equal rules are a necessity.
     
    JackD likes this.
  2. kriss05

    kriss05 Russian Federation Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2008
    Messages:
    1,013
    Likes Received:
    154
    Trophy Points:
    63
    These are very pity issues. I'm scratching my head trying to understand why domain registrars can't auction .in domain names not owned by them, but Sedo, which is not registrar, can do that. If domain registrar only provides buyers/sellers with selling platform to buy/sell .in domains owned by third parties, why it should be prohibited at all.

    Another, maybe even worse issue is INDRP arbitrage.

    Funny but IN Registry seems to be in contradiction/violation with their own .IN Policy Framework:

    "3.4.10 A comprehensive Dispute Resolution Policy (DRP) will be adopted in line with internationally accepted guidelines prescribed by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), and Universal Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) adopted by the ICANN. This will be in line with the relevant provisions of the Indian IT Act 2000."

    From very recent UDRP case:

    "The Panel agrees with the panels in the prior cases cited above, and considers the business of registering domain names including dictionary words to be, in itself, a legitimate commercial activity."

    One can find out that parking domain names in itself is also bona-fide use under UDRP. Yet when most of INDRP arbitrators learn from the complaint that disputed .in domain is parked/offered for sale, it is like red flag for a bull. I bet INDRP arbitrators are not familiar with "internationally accepted guidelines by Universal Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP)" neither they heard of WIPO regularly issuing UDRP juridical overviews yet INDRP arbitrators pretend to judge domain disputes relying on dispute resolution policy which is "in line" with UDRP guidelines.

    IMHO each INDRP arbitrator, to be permitted to rule INDRP disputes, has to pass exam on the content of Gerald M. Levine's UDRP blog. Especially on the following topics:

    "What It Takes to Prove Common Law Rights"

    "Passive Holding of Domain Names and the Argument for Bad Faith or Forfeiture"

    "Trademarks and Domain Names Composed of Common Terms"

    "Identical or Confusingly Similar to Trademarks but Noninfringing Domain Names"


    BTW, have you noticed that .IN Registry stopped updating the number of .in registrations? Maybe that's because recently .in lost 200,000 registrations and now is very close or already below 2 mil of registrations. Those lost registrations, approx 10% of the total number of registered .in domains, were from .in investors. This shows an important role domain investors play to keep extension growing and healthy.

    Take a look at the suit folowed by EURID: Public Consultation: Revision of .eu Regulations

    "Since the entry into force of the .eu regulations, many things have changed in the market of domain names, which is now much more dynamic and competitive, but also within the European Union itself. Therefore the existing rules on .eu need to be evaluated to assess whether they are still fit-for-purpose.

    The findings from the questionnaire have major impacts on the future mission of .eu so please have a look and complete it at your convenience. Don’t be shy, we want your voice to be heard!"


    We want our voice to be heard too!
     
    Last edited: Jun 17, 2017
    INB, Jeff and JackD like this.