ICANN/DNSO
DNSO Mailling lists archives

[ga-full]


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Re: [ga] Stolen domains, transfers, WHOIS, audit trails, and system integrity


Besides the fact that any number of participants in a disputed transaction
may not be from democratic countries, the more important point is that the
contracts and alternative dispute resolution should cover all matters
sufficiently for all but 1 in 10,000 names or so. This is not to avoid local
laws, but to allow for the >50,000 transactions/day to be handled in an
efficient and reliable manner.

Regards
Elliot Noss

----- Original Message -----
From: "Rodrigo Orenday Serrato" <rorenday@banxico.org.mx>
To: <ross@tucows.com>; "'George Kirikos'" <gkirikos@yahoo.com>; "'Karl
Auerbach'" <karl@CaveBear.com>
Cc: <ga@dnso.org>
Sent: Friday, December 06, 2002 6:07 PM
Subject: RE: [ga] Stolen domains, transfers, WHOIS, audit trails, and system
integrity


> Ross
>
> You might care to consider the following comments:
>
> 1) If you think that courts are not a reasonable venue in order to reach
> solutions to domain name disputes, I would like to remind you of cases
such
> as Panavision v. Toeppen, Ballysucks.com and Sporty's Farm. As long as
we're
> at it, I'd also like to remind you that there is an Anti-Cybersquatting
> Consumer Protection Act in force in the United States.
>
> 2) If you do beleive that its just not realistic to rely on local law to
> solve international problems, then it would appear that you have had no
> contact, or very little, if any, with matters concerning international
law.
> Local law may be applied to cases which contain international elements if
> said cases have sufficient contact with the forum which law one seeks to
> apply.
>
> In democratic states, access to justice is a fundamental premise, and such
> governments are obliged to guarantee that residents within its territory
> will obtain justice from its courts, whether through the application of
> domestic law or foreign law, depending on what the merits of the case
> warrant.
>
> Uniform dispute policies are a positive development in dispute settlement;
> nevertheless, their existence does not, and furthermore may not, preclude
> the application of local law to a particular case. If the contrary were
> true, sovereigns would be forsaking an indispensable element of their
> sovereignty: the appurtenance to administrate justice within their
> territories.
>
> Atentamente, Regards
> Rodrigo Orenday Serratos
>
> -----Mensaje original-----
> De: owner-ga@dnso.org [mailto:owner-ga@dnso.org]En nombre de Ross Wm.
> Rader
> Enviado el: Viernes, 06 de Diciembre de 2002 04:16 PM
> Para: 'George Kirikos'; 'Karl Auerbach'
> CC: ga@dnso.org
> Asunto: RE: [ga] Stolen domains, transfers, WHOIS, audit trails, and
> system integrity
>
>
>
> > Which legislature? I'm in Canada, the seller might be in
> > Korea, and the registry might be in the US, whereas the
> > gaining registrar could be in France, with the losing
> > registrar in Germany.
>
> Anybody that still thinks that the courts are a reasonable way to fix
> the problems that crop up in the namespace day in and day out have been
> living in a cave - theoretically it sounds great, but as you point out
> George, its often far from practical. Apologies to Karl, but its just
> not realistic to rely on local law to solve international problems.
>
> This is why uniform dispute resolution processes are such great ideas -
> they can actually solve real-world problems. The biggest issue that we
> have now though, is that we don't have enough of them and the ones we do
> have need some work.
>
> My biggest expectation for ICANN 2.0 and the new CEO is that this will
> start to get sorted out quickly.
>
>
>                        -rwr
>
>
>
>
> "There's a fine line between fishing and standing on the shore like an
> idiot."
> - Steven Wright
>
> Got Blog? http://www.byte.org/blog
>
> Please review our ICANN Reform Proposal:
> http://www.byte.org/heathrow
>
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-ga@dnso.org [mailto:owner-ga@dnso.org] On Behalf
> > Of George Kirikos
> > Sent: Friday, December 06, 2002 4:43 PM
> > To: Karl Auerbach
> > Cc: ga@dnso.org
> > Subject: Re: [ga] Stolen domains, transfers, WHOIS, audit
> > trails, and system integrity
> >
> >
> > Hello,
> >
> > --- Karl Auerbach <karl@CaveBear.com> wrote:
> > > If you look for the protection of rights and if you feel
> > that you have
> > > an unequal bargaining power to enter into contracts that
> > protect your
> > > interests, then the place to go is a legislature, not ICANN.
> >
> > Which legislature? I'm in Canada, the seller might be in
> > Korea, and the registry might be in the US, whereas the
> > gaining registrar could be in France, with the losing
> > registrar in Germany.
> >
> > Some clearer rules for the gTLD domains would be helpful.
> > Right now, it's Verisign really calling the shots, and I
> > trust them less than I do ICANN.
> >
> > I'm all for enforcing contractual rights -- but make it a
> > little bit easier, by helping make the process transparent,
> > documented, etc. A judge trying to make sense of what
> > happened isn't helped when registrars keep shoddy records,
> > and don't stand behind transfers or ownership changes. If it
> > was like the financial industry, there's a "know your client"
> > kind of rule....no such thing in this industry.
> >
> > I'd like to be able to say that on December 6, 2002, I have
> > clear title (save for TM issues, e.g. UDRP, and whether it's
> > a title to the property, or a license, blah blah) and
> > irrevokable control of domains X, Y, and Z. Right now, I
> > can't. A buyer of domain X from me can say even less!
> >
> > Sincerely,
> >
> > George Kirikos
> > http://www.kirikos.com/
> > --
> > 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
> >
>
> --
> 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
>
> --
> 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
>

--
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



<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>