RE: [ga] NSI Supports Forcing All Domain Disputes to Virginia

[Roeland Meyer <rmeyer@mhsc.com>]

> From: Joop Teernstra [mailto:terastra@terabytz.co.nz]
> Sent: Friday, August 03, 2001 4:26 AM
> 
> At 13:24 2/08/2001 -0400, DannyYounger@cs.com wrote:
> >http://www.eff.org/Censorship/SLAPP/Forum_shopping/Heathmount
> _v_Technodome.com 
> >
> 
> It will be a black day for the US Constitution if the Supreme 
> Court would 
> countenance such a subversion of defendant's rights to due process.
> Why on earth does Verisign want to get involved when they are 
> not party to 
> the dispute??

Think of how much easier Phil's job would be <g>.
BTW, I've said it before, there are only two jurisdictions that matter, that
of the defendent and that of the registry. With the UDRP, you possibly add
the jurisdiction of the UDRP arbitrator, post facto.

--
IANAL = I Am Not A Lawyer. Before taking legal action based on anything I
say or write, you are strongly encouraged to seek the advice of an attorney.

--
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