Re: [ga] Contemplated Registry Fees

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

John and all former DNSO GA members,

John Berryhill Ph.D. J.D. wrote:

> > If there is a dispute over a transfer, providers (registrars/registries)
> > should be expected to handle it, period.
>
> I wish it were that easy, but it is not.  To the extent that the registroids
> get involved in making determinations in transfer disputes, even if they
> agree, they expose themselves to liability if they are wrong.
>
> > If they do not, there are legal
> > avenues.
>
> Quite often, there are not.  And what legal avenues exist are pretty narrow,
> in view of the standard registration contract terms.

  In your opinion, this indeed may be true.  However in the Sex.com
case, a legal avenue is pursued.  And that is only one of many such
cases.  More will ensue, as I am sure you already know John.  Legal
approaches are being considered and tried.  Some working, and some
failing.

>
>
> >  Why should a registrant have to
> > spend hundreds or thousands of dollars when there is a transfer mess?  Who
> > will benefit?  Registrars should be held accountable for transfers, as
> > should registries.  If an error is made - fix it.
>
> Again I wish it were that simple, or that the "fix" was so obvious to all
> concerned.  Your comment about hundreds or thousands of dollars doesn't fit
> well with your "legal avenues" comment.  What legal avenues *don't* cost
> thousands of dollars?

  To answer your question, those that are either Pro bono or done
on contingency.  Not all lawyers, or even the best lawyers, charge
up front fees John!  >;)

>
>
> > That's pretty simple.  If a registrant files a complaint about a transfer,
> > follow the trail and fix the problem.  If it was fraud, get law
> > enforcement involved.  If it was an error, reverse it and refund any money
> > collected.
>
> I have seen quite a few situations where various parties concerned really
> don't know exactly what happened, but they disagree.  Here's an outline of a
> real situation that came up recently:
>
> 1.  Registrant A forgot to renew domain name.
>
> 2.  Registrant B registered the domain name after it dropped.
>
> 3.  Registrant A then noticed that B had the domain name.
>
> 4.  Convinced that B had hi-jacked the domain name, A persuaded his registrar
> to issue a transfer request to get the domain name "back".
>
> 5.  B was then pretty well convinced that A had stolen the domain name.
>
> The fact is that A *had* stolen the domain name, but A didn't see it that
> way.
>
> Both parties had a "trail" that suggested to each of them that their
> perception of events was correct.  It took quite a bit of doing, and you bet
> it cost several hundred dollars to get this mess sorted out.  At the
> registrar end of things, it took up considerable staff time, for which none
> of the registrars was compensated one thin dime.

  This is why for instance the California Supreme court is considering
the argument, (This Month I believe) that a domain name is property
once it is registered.  However in your example John, a good one
I might add, Registrant A cannot reasonable claim the Domain
Name was stolen if he/she forgot to renew his/her registration
under the current contractual arrangement.  However, again
as those registry/registrar contracts are of questionable legal
value, the Registrar is indeed in a potential legal situation
that could have been avoided some time ago.  As Joe Sims
the author of these Registry/Registrar contracts was advised
during their draft stages of some of their obvious problems,
the real culprit here is ICANN itself.

>
>
> The real world is just not as simple as "fix the problem" when people have
> different views of what "the problem" is, and different sets of evidence
> which support their views.

  Good point.  It is also true that when potential problem areas are
in advance pointed out regarding contractual language, then defining
"The Problem" as you put it that has been defined or perceived,
was known to become a potential problem before it occurred.
That is just an example of poor contractual language/provisioning.
Thus giving the Registrar a "legal Out" and an avenue for collecting
that "Dime" to which you refer, John.  >;)

>  And, in the situation above, each of the parties
> was convinced to a certainty that the other party was lying.  Both of the
> parties, however, were quite earnest in their convictions.

  Indeed.  And the search for the truth many times starts here...

>
>
> --
> 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 LLA. - (Over 129k members/stakeholders strong!)
================================================================
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number: 214-244-4827 or 214-244-3801


--
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