Re: [registrars] Unauthorized transfer

["Siegfried Langenbach" <svl@nrw.net>]

Hallo,

please contact transfer@joker.com with details

in such cases.

siegfried

On 10 Apr 2003 at 9:42, Patricio Valdes wrote:

> 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/
> >
> >
> >
>