Slashdot Mirror
Lapsed Domain Name Fight Ruled Upon In Australia
Zaphus writes "The Age is
reporting
that a domain name fight in Australia in which a lapsed domain name was snapped up by another group with the same initials, has been ruled OK by the arbitrator. This is despite the cause of the lapse being the registrar's for failing to process the renewal even though it was paid for. If this stands then it sets an interesting precident in Australia."
So the drivers rights organization paid to renew their domain registration, but the registrar failed to process the renewal and resold the domian to the dust removal guys.
The arbitrators allow the dust removal guys to keep the registration? First of all, it's apparrent that Australian registrar is grossly negligent, and should pay to compensate the drivers rights group for their loss. It also highlights that the idea of domian name registration arbitration is broken not just here in the States, but around the world.
Finally, and most importantly, it underlines the need for people to become much more creative with domain names. Initials were cute "in the beginning," but with more and more groups competing for names, people must come up with better and ulitmately more meaningful alternatives.
Has contract law become so misguided that a simple disclaimer can release the business from any liability due to obvious gross negligence? As "contracts" with registrars are basically non-negotiable, do they truly fall under the heading of contract law?
As the legal system was setup in part to protect individuals and businesses from unfair, exploitive, or negligent other individuals or businesses, doesn't the legal responsibilities of said party have precedence over a codification of negligent business practices?
This Sig is a mnemonic device designed to allow you to recognize this author in the future.
It seems to me the finger here is being unfairly pointed at the registrar. It was a RESELLER of the registrar (the reseller was Internet Registrations Australia - famous for spamming people with fake invoice-looking renewal notices) that took payment and did not pass it on to the registrar.
It even says so in the third paragraph of the Age article.