Re: [ga] WHOIS accuracy, and name deletions

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Rodrigo and all Former DNSO GA members,

  First of all not all domain names are associated in any way with a
web page.  Hence your idea or Spain's idea that you provided below
makes basically no sense what so ever as a potential policy for
ALL domain name registrants.  I also don't see this suggestion
or policy of Spains really having anything to do with Whois
data or data listings information for a Domain Name.

  Secondly, as in life, in business or ecommerce business especially,
which not all Domain Names are associated with anyway, there
are not "Sureties" as you seem to believe in you comments
or assertions below.

  Third, as for time frames effecting a particular filing with respect to
a Domain Name dispute or legal filing, different states in the US alone
have different time frames canonized in their state statutes.  What
you seem to be suggesting, and correct me if I am wrong is that
the time fame to which you seem to desire would in many cases
in the US alone, violate state statutes.  I see this as being even
more divisive and creating a potential for even more legal morass's
than your suggested idea would be trying to solve..

Rodrigo Orenday Serrato wrote:

> O.K., just one thing first: I was not the author of the second paragraph;
> that was a reply from someone else to my posting.
>
> As for your comment, although duplicating the full legal apparatus for the
> service of process of  the judiciary in the UDRP is not only not practical,
> but perhaps even impossible altogether at many levels, I think many people
> would agree that it is desirable to add as many such sureties as possible.
>
> I mean, for example, that there are great differences in the service of
> process throughout the world (eg. in Mexico service of process is only valid
> and binding if performed by a Court officer using certified documents and
> drafting a certified deed thereof, whereas, as I understand, in the USA
> practically anyone can serve process upon the defendant by just handing him
> a copy of the suit and providing the Court with evidence of the moment of
> service) which may not be fully addressed.
>
> Nevertheless I agree with comments in the sense that a printout of an email
> allegedly sent to the registration contact, which may sit in his inbox for a
> period of time without being read, is not sufficient evidence that said
> contact has had knowledge of the email's content.
>
> Here's a thought I just came up with. If you've registered a domain name and
> you actively use it for your website, and you have a number of pages in sai
> website, perhaps it wouldn't be too much trouble to include one wherein
> someone suing you as per the UDRP could serve the process on you and obtain
> proof of service thereof.
>
> Maybe countries, such as Spain, that have legislated on information society
> services could require domain name registrants to include one such page in
> their websites, as anyone who has a website comes under the rule of such
> statutes. However I can not as yet tell if that would be desirable.
>
> Atentamente, Regards
> Rodrigo Orenday Serratos
>
> -----Mensaje original-----
> De: owner-ga@dnso.org [mailto:owner-ga@dnso.org]En nombre de
> kent@songbird.com
> Enviado el: Jueves, 09 de Enero de 2003 12:23 PM
> Para: ga@dnso.org
> Asunto: Re: [ga] WHOIS accuracy, and name deletions
>
> On Wed, Jan 08, 2003 at 04:27:37PM -0800, George Kirikos wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > --- Rodrigo  Orenday Serrato <rorenday@banxico.org.mx> wrote:
> > > 15 days seems more than fair a period prior deletion.
> > >
> > > I don't know how it is elsewhere, but in Mexico one has 9 working
> > > days to
> > > reply to a law suit, period after which you would find yourself in
> > > default
> >
> > The big difference, though, is that the clock begins in real court once
> > you are *served* the legal process. Process servers often try multiple
> > times to reach a defendant. An email sitting on a server somewhere that
> > hasn't been read doesn't constitutive being served in any jurisdiction
> > I know of. Can you *prove* that a standard email notification was
> > actually read??
>
> So you think that the UDRP should duplicate the full legal aparatus of
> serving process?
>
> Kent
> --
> 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

Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 127k members/stakeholders strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number: 214-244-4827 or 972-244-3801
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208


--
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