Re: [ga] Abusing consensus in the Transfers TF

[Dan Steinberg <synthesis@videotron.ca>]

ummmmmmmmmm why?
what is the relevance to this discussion? the issue is registrant bankruptcy. not
bankruptcy of any of the organizations in the mix.



eric wrote:

> This is quite interesting.
> Can someone point to a non-profit public benefit corp that has gone bankrupt?
>
> Eric
>
> Dan Steinberg wrote:
>
> > ummmmm again reiterating that I dont even play a bankrupty specialist on TV, the
> > relevance is fairly simple.
> > Every asset (with exceptions natch or it would be too easy) of someone who is
> > bankrupt....is potential $$$ for the creditors.
> > A domain name...is an asset. The value of said asset can vary greatly, just like
> > listing 'car' as an asset can mean anything from a 15 year beater than can only
> > start going downhill to a $500k supercar, the value of a domain name....might be
> > something significant to creditors. And it does not matter who the creditors
> > are, banks, finance companies, registrars, etc. It's the relevant bankruptcy law
> > that governs how allllll the assets are divided up among the creditors.  The
> > 'vested interest' has to get in line with the rest of the unsecured creditors
> > and hope for something left over after the secured creditors have been fed.
> > Attempting to do anything else via contract constitutes an attempt to circumvent
> > law, which is usually frowned upon.
> >
> > Hope this is a bit clearer.
> >
> > "Ross Wm. Rader" wrote:
> >
> > > > Second, if issues relating to bankrupty are going to be publically
> > > discussed at
> > > > all, I would suggest that bankruptcy specialists from the relevant
> > > jurisdictions
> > > > be called in to provide at least an overview of the applicable issues.
> > > FYI,
> > > > every jurisdiction that I know of (and I know so little about bankruptcy
> > > that I
> > > > refuse to even play a bankruptcy specialist on TV) has laws that look at
> > > (and in
> > > > some cases rolll back)  financial transactions of people as they sink to
> > > prevent
> > > > siphoning off assets that might otherwise be divided among creditors.
> > >
> > > It is a murky issue, but I fail to see the relevance. The clause in question
> > > states:
> > >
> > > "Instances when the requested change of sponsoring Registrar may be denied
> > > include, but are not limited to:
> > > ...
> > > 2) A pending bankruptcy of the Registered Name holder
> > > ..."
> > >
> > > If the losing registrar has been identified as a creditor in a company that
> > > is in the process of declaring bankruptcy, the losing registrar has a
> > > legitimate vested interest in ensuring that it's "soon-to-be-asset" isn't
> > > transferred out to another registrar until such time that the actual
> > > structure of the bankruptcy is declared and the asset details can be sorted
> > > out by the relevent agencies.
> > >
> > > It might be appropriate to include the rest of the TF in further discussions
> > > on this subject to ensure an even distribution of issue data.
> > >
> > > -rwr
> >
> > --
> > Dan Steinberg
> >
> > SYNTHESIS:Law & Technology
> > 35, du Ravin  phone: (613) 794-5356
> > Chelsea, Quebec  fax:   (819) 827-4398
> > J9B 1N1                 e-mail:synthesis@videotron.ca
> >
> > --
> > This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
> > Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> > ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> > Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

--
Dan Steinberg

SYNTHESIS:Law & Technology
35, du Ravin  phone: (613) 794-5356
Chelsea, Quebec  fax:   (819) 827-4398
J9B 1N1                 e-mail:synthesis@videotron.ca


--
This message was passed to you via the ga-full@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html