Private property shall not apply to domain names

Klonk.dk , Orango.dk and Eof.dk has until recently been owned by private individuals. In connection with complaints of "Reappointment" All three domains have been deprived the owners and passed on to companies who believe that they are rightful owners of the domain.

I recently purchased a domain name - http://www.recitat.dk/ - and in doing so I got a brochure from DK Hostmaster , which says the following:

DIFO (Danish Internet Forum) and DK Hostmaster currently has three opportunities to intervene if a. Dkdomænenavn desired suspended. These are cases where there are:

  • Apparent confusion and illegal business
  • Blatant and illegal activities that pose a safety or societal risk
  • Typosquatting, ie fault probing domain names that get visitors to their website because Internet users type a single letter wrong in relation to an existing domain name.

But in these cases, the domains have been registered before the companies existed. Thus, private owners never acted in bad faith or intended to buy the domain for resale.

In the " Act on Internet Domains Specifically Allocated to Denmark "states in § 12

Registrants must not register and use the internet domain names in violation of good domain name practice.
Paragraph. Second Registrants must not register and maintain registrations of Internet domain names solely for resale or rental purposes.

Basically it is a good rule to keep the domain parasites from the dish. How in the three cases can be interpreted against the owners I am wondering face. Registrant has some obligations related to payment and that the domain should be used. In all three cases, the domains have been used, among other private email.

Although DK Hostmaster according to item 1 of its General Terms provide that they "assign and register domain names under. Com domain on a first come, first served" principle, so the Danish state owns the domain name. It is only on loan. If the Danish government subsequently consider that others may have more benefit of the domain name, it must then be transferred to him. That's what lovfortolkningen Board of Appeals sets the stage for and thus can no longer secure in knowing whether they may use their domain active for ever.

But what kind of a balance between individuals and or companies that true? What utilitarianism is the Danish government wants to be the guarantor for? And they will also apply the practice in relation to telephone numbers, license plates, training, space reservations on the train, the distribution of energy, etc. etc. in the "public interest"?

I read recently an article in News com, which is about that " China will not allow domains to private . "
In China it's about censorship. In Denmark it is about commercial interests. China's policy towards Internet is abhorrent. In Denmark, I must note that we are far from the conditions prevailing on the dot-com domain. You must have met all of the following three elements to a complaint shall be executed:

  • The domain name is Identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in som har complainant rights;
  • The registrant ikke garden eventuelle Rights or Legitimate Interests in the domain name; and
  • The registrant registered the domain name and is Using it in "bad faith."

Source: Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UDRP

I am now aware that the Danish state owns the domains and that we only have them on loan. But I do not agree that commercial interests can be equated with societal interests and thus be more important than private interests.



Article from Version2 on Eof.dk: http://www.version2.dk/artikel/12124-klagenaevn-konfiskerer-html-fri-domaener
Article from Version2 on Orango: http://www.version2.dk/artikel/13478-it-folk-i-oproer-orangodk-sagen-er-en-skandale
Article from ComON on Klonk.dk: http://www.comon.dk/nyheder/Ny-kontroversiel-domaene-afgoerelse-1.250247.html
Article from ComOn on Isabells.dk: http://www.comon.dk/nyheder/Dansk-domaenesynder-reddet-af-otte-arig-datter-1.241803.html
See also reports on the respective domains as long as it lasts: Klonk.dk and orango.dk


One Response to "Private property shall not domain names"

  1. Yvonne wrote:

    February 24, 10 at 16:38

    Frightening and anger provoking. I have no less than three domain names that someone in the commercial interest could find to claim. Fortunately, there is html in the two of them. And now there is - this - even in the third, endoxa.dk.


What do you think?