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

["Rodrigo Orenday Serrato" <rorenday@banxico.org.mx>]

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