demandclass
Regular Member
Great post Ned.
Buyer beware
- Thread starter neddy
- Start date
johno69
Top Contributor
Thanks for the info.
Hey - you're the new auDA Demand Class Director - you tell us!
+1
Cooper Mills DomainLawyer
Top Contributor
The changes made to the policy are a direct outcome of the 2010 Names Policy Panel. auDA has implemented the recommendations of the Panel.
The changes are positive for domainers, as there is a real clarification about monetisation, so it enables domainers to act with more certainty.
This is a really good example of how the multi stake holder Policy Panels work effectively.
Also a good reason why all forum members should get involved in Policy Panels, even if not as members, as people who provide feedback to calls for submissions.
The changes are positive for domainers, as there is a real clarification about monetisation, so it enables domainers to act with more certainty.
This is a really good example of how the multi stake holder Policy Panels work effectively.
Also a good reason why all forum members should get involved in Policy Panels, even if not as members, as people who provide feedback to calls for submissions.
demandclass
Regular Member
Great news. I will be happy to participate on any level. I appreciate your hard work already as well as those that contributed on my, and our, behalf for the betterment of the domain name industry. Thanks!
findtim
Top Contributor
so just to clarify, your saying you have to be an auda member to vote, but you do not have to be reply to submissions ?
tim
Cooper Mills DomainLawyer
Top Contributor
yes that is correct Tim.
This is a good thing because domain name policy is for everyone not just people who pay a membership fee, so hearing from all stake holders is important.
This is a good thing because domain name policy is for everyone not just people who pay a membership fee, so hearing from all stake holders is important.
neddy
Top Contributor
I followed this up by sending an email to the NAB email address on the PPSR search. Said "I was interested in buying the domain name, but wanted to find out about the security interests; and what was involved in getting them discharged".
They replied within a couple of hours, but all they did was confirm they held security interests over all the assets, and that I should seek legal advice! LOL!
I did let Netfleet know by email that there might be a problem (or future ramifications) if an unsuspecting buyer picked it up cheaply. But I guess that's their call.
neddy
Top Contributor
Have you still not applied to be a member? You've been talking about it for what seems ages. Do you want a membership as a Christmas present?
I have a slightly different view.
If a domain is "sold" then someone has to authorise the sale and money changes hands.
If the ownership is later in dispute the original "owner" should be looking for the person who authorised the sale and where the money is.
If the trade eventually becomes a dispute then the person who authorised the sale should be charged with "theft" of an asset even though they may or may not have benefited from the sale.
My understanding of the rules is only "authorised" person can transfer an asset such as
a Domain.
The purchaser should be in the clear as they would have acted in accordance with rules and acted in good faith.
Not a lawyer.
If a domain is "sold" then someone has to authorise the sale and money changes hands.
If the ownership is later in dispute the original "owner" should be looking for the person who authorised the sale and where the money is.
If the trade eventually becomes a dispute then the person who authorised the sale should be charged with "theft" of an asset even though they may or may not have benefited from the sale.
My understanding of the rules is only "authorised" person can transfer an asset such as
a Domain.
The purchaser should be in the clear as they would have acted in accordance with rules and acted in good faith.
Not a lawyer.
neddy
Top Contributor
Not sure if we're on the same wavelength here fuzzy. The purpose of my original post was to point out some potential pitfalls of purchasing a domain that was more than likely encumbered to a financial institution.
Like you, I'm not a lawyer, but I've dealt with enough banks to know that once they have their hooks on something, then you need to be very careful when closing a deal with the "seller" of a possibly encumbered asset.
Would you buy a once high-end value domain from a company that was:
- Registered for the sole purpose of owning that domain name.
- That company had two "charges" registered against it by a financial institution.
I'm not saying you wouldn't or shouldn't, but surely for peace of mind you would want to get a clearance from the security holder first (that is before handing over the cash to the "seller")?
I know I would.
I think the advent of the PPSR is going to become very important for high value domains in the near future. It is hardly used for that purpose now, but imho it will be in time to come.
goldnugget
Top Contributor
If we are talking about physical goods like say that blue ray player that some bloke sells you at the pub, and you buy it, the bloke gets busted for dealing in stolen goods and you 'could' be charge with receiving stolen goods (even though you werent aware it may be stolen).
Bottom line is that the police take back the goods and return them to their rightful owner and you are out of pocket. Its then your responsibility to get the money back from the person who sold you the goods in the first place...no one else.
In business if there is an administrator appointed, they are the only ones authorised to dispurse assets, so there is still an element of risk depending on the situation. Chances are ofcourse you wont be charged for an offence (in relation to aquiring domains anyway), but you can still lose the asset if it is disputed.
The only way I can see it work in the buyers favour is if an aftermarket platform can gaurantee that there is no title to the domains that are listed, paid for transfered and settled through their model (without buyer and seller directly dealing with each other).
Thats my thoughts...Any transaction can be a risk.
Bottom line is that the police take back the goods and return them to their rightful owner and you are out of pocket. Its then your responsibility to get the money back from the person who sold you the goods in the first place...no one else.
In business if there is an administrator appointed, they are the only ones authorised to dispurse assets, so there is still an element of risk depending on the situation. Chances are ofcourse you wont be charged for an offence (in relation to aquiring domains anyway), but you can still lose the asset if it is disputed.
The only way I can see it work in the buyers favour is if an aftermarket platform can gaurantee that there is no title to the domains that are listed, paid for transfered and settled through their model (without buyer and seller directly dealing with each other).
Thats my thoughts...Any transaction can be a risk.
