Re: [ga] Abusing consensus in the Transfers TF

[Jefsey Morfin <jefsey@wanadoo.fr>]

could someone remember that the world is no part of the USA?
Only the US Anti Cybersquatting Act gives some crediblity to the position 
that an electronic pointer on comonly shared public tables has a value by 
itself. jfc


On 15:28 28/03/02, Dan Steinberg said:
>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

--
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