[registrars] Unauthorized transfer

["Patricio Valdes" <valdes@parava.net>]

I am asking for help from anyone that knows what to do in this case.
Joker.com requested a transfer of a domain name from us, Parava Networks and
our client failed to stop the transfer. We automatically allow all transfers
to go away unless the client stops the transfer.

In this case, Joker.com requested a transfer without proper authorization
from the domain owner as established in the RRA.

what can we do to get this name back? We have contacted Joker.com and have
yet to receive an answer.

Patricio Valdes
Parava Networks

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-registrars@dnso.org [mailto:owner-registrars@dnso.org]On
Behalf Of Rick Wesson
Sent: Wednesday, April 09, 2003 2:24 PM
To: Cute, Brian
Cc: 'Tim Ruiz'; 'Margie Milam'; ross@tucows.com; 'Elana Broitman';
registrars@dnso.org
Subject: RE: [registrars] Proposed Ballots



Its a slippery slope, shouldn't we also include Law-Enforcement, if we
include IPR? I suggest we leave it as ross put it insted of including
every special interest.

-rick


On Wed, 9 Apr 2003, Cute, Brian wrote:

> This debate seems to be mostly about perception.  First, I support the
> amendment as written.  I think it is appropriate to refrain from
identifying
> a specific "key stakeholder" by name out of concern that non-identified
key
> stakeholders might inappropriately perceive that their interests will
> receive short shrift or are somehow subordinate to the identified key
> stakeholder's interests.  As a matter of drafting, it also leaves the door
> open to potential yet unidentified stakeholders (just a good conservative
> approach to drafting).
>
> What troubles me about Margie's remarks is the apparent suggestion that
the
> Registrar Constituency either: 1) wants to ignore the IP constituency's
> legitimate interest in WHOIS as a key stakeholder in this process; or 2)
> believes it can accomplish the stated goals without giving full
> consideration to the IP constituency's concerns about WHOIS.  I, for one,
> absolutely recognize the IP constituency as a key stakeholder and do not
> entertain any thought that a resolution of these issues can be achieved
> without with the IP constituency's full participation.
>
> If Margies remarks reflect a generally held view within the IP
constituency,
> I think it is incumbent on the rc to establish lines of communication and
to
> signal our interest in working together on this item.  That being said, I
> would be surprised if either a registrar or an IP constituency member read
> the draft amendment and DID NOT recognize IP interests as being included
in
> the "key stakeholder" category.
>
> Brian
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tim Ruiz [mailto:tim@godaddy.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 09, 2003 1:50 PM
> To: 'Margie Milam'; ross@tucows.com; 'Elana Broitman';
> registrars@dnso.org
> Subject: RE: [registrars] Proposed Ballots
>
>
> Margie,
>
> For me the point is that I don't believe we should single out the IP
> community in the way you propose.
>
> Let's not turn this into some kind of debate over IP interests. Ross'
> amendment is sound and does not in any way imply that the IP community,
> or any other, has more or less rights to the data: quote "to ensure an
> appropriate balance for all interests."
>
> Our main concern here should be to get this on the Privacy Task Force's
> plate. Then let the debate begin.
>
> Tim
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-registrars@dnso.org [mailto:owner-registrars@dnso.org] On
> Behalf Of Margie Milam
> Sent: Wednesday, April 09, 2003 10:31 AM
> To: ross@tucows.com; Elana Broitman; registrars@dnso.org
> Subject: RE: [registrars] Proposed Ballots
>
> I am concerned about the opposition to my proposed amendment.  Does the
> registrar constituency really believe that WHOIS plays no role in
> assisting trademark holders determining who has been cybersquatting on
> their legitimate trademark rights?   Without access to this information,
> it is practically impossible for a trademark holder to determine how it
> should protect its rights.   Obviously, ICANN believes that IP interests
> represent significant policy concerns or there would be no IP
> constituency or focus on sunrise periods associated with the launch of
> new TLDS.      Privacy concerns are not the only concerns that need to
> be addressed with respect to WHOIS.    I think that it is a mistake for
> the registrar constituency to ignore the legitimate role of WHOIS for
> intellectual property purposes.
>
>
>
> If there is not sufficient support for my amendment,  is there a way to
> include my language as an alternative in the ballot?
>
>
>
> Margie
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 	-----Original Message-----
> 	From: Ross Wm. Rader [mailto:ross@tucows.com]
> 	Sent: Wed 4/9/2003 9:58 AM
> 	To: Margie Milam; 'Elana Broitman'; registrars@dnso.org
> 	Cc:
> 	Subject: RE: [registrars] Proposed Ballots
>
>
>
> 	> I would like to propose an additional revision to the
> 	> amendment which would include a reference to intellectual
> 	> property interests...<snip>
>
> 	> These changes would make it clear that the registrar
> 	> consituency is concerned about intellectual property
> 	> interests and would make it more likely that the other
> 	> consituencies would support the registrar position on this
> issue.
>
> 	Tucows does not support this amendment, nor would we support the
> motion
> 	if it included this amendment. Trademark, copyright and patent
> 	enforcement interests should not be afforded special preference
> in GNSO
> 	policy beyond those rights that they have guaranteed under
> existing law
> 	at the expense of other legitimate stakeholders. Inequitable
> extra-legal
> 	considerations such as this belong in precisely the same
> category as
> 	those found amongst the WIPO-II recommendations that Bruce
> forwarded to
> 	the list yesterday.
>
> 	For the record, Tucows does not support using "privacy" as a
> cloak for
> 	illegitimate activities. The recommendations of the privacy task
> force
> 	should clearly deal with all such activities similarly and not,
> as
> 	Margie's amendment implies, put the demands of the trademark,
> copyright
> 	and patent enforcement interests ahead of the very real needs of
> 	individuals, registrars, law enforcement, governments and other
> 	stakeholders with equally important requirements.
>
>
> 	                       -rwr
>
>
>
>
> 	"There's a fine line between fishing and standing on the shore
> like an
> 	idiot."
> 	- Steven Wright
>
> 	Get Blog... http://www.byte.org/
>
>
>