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

["Ross Wm. Rader" <ross@tucows.com>]

> 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