Re: [ga] Transfer Protocol Perjury Stipulation

[Joop Teernstra <terastra@terabytz.co.nz>]

At 05:16 AM 12/07/1999 -0700, d3nnis wrote:
>Today's teleconference included a slightly scarey discussion regarding the
advisability of
>clamping down on domain name registrants who flee to a new registrar to
escape  a
>pending dispute or cease and desist letter.    The option of requiring
registrant hoppers to
>sign a statement declaring themselves free of such baggage was given some
very sharp teeth:
>the penalty of perjury.
>
>As an individual domain name owner I noticed acutely the absence of any
spokesperson for my
>perspective on this issue.   So I include it here.
>
The absence of any spokesperson for the Individual Domain Name registrants
on the pNC teleconf has very serious implications for the legitimacy or
acceptance of any of its resolutions.

I call on all  fair minded participants in this teleconf to rectify this
before the next conference call.  You know that there is a constituency for
Individual Domain Name Owners.

On substance: the proposed "anti forum shopping measure" elevates a simple
cease and desist letter to a major hurdle in transferring Domain names,
thereby further encouraging the frivolous issue of such letters by
unscrupulous law firms.

Quite apart from the fact that in many non-western cultures the issuing of
a sworn statement of any kind is a costly and highly bureaucratic affair.
On the teleconf I heard about undue burdens for registrars, but there was
no one to speak for the registrants. In case of the absence of disputes,
such burdens are  totally unwarranted.


--Joop Teernstra LL.M.--  , bootstrap  of
the Cyberspace Association,
the constituency for Individual Domain Name Owners
http://www.idno.org