Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1551
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST          Friday, January 10 2003          Volume 01 : Number 1551

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2003 12:24:05 +0100 (CET)
From: Marc Schneiders <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] WHOIS accuracy, and name deletions

On Wed, 8 Jan 2003, at 19:45 [=GMT+0100], Vittorio Bertola wrote:
> On Wed, 8 Jan 2003 13:24:34 +0100 (CET), you wrote:
>
> >I very much agree with the position outlined below. I would rather have a
> >voluntary WHOIS (meaning you can be in there with the data you want,
> >except perhaps some bare minimum for TECHNICAL contact, say email
> >address), but I guess the power of the Intellectual Property People is too
> >big to achieve that.
>
> Well, don't forget that, at least in the EU, we have a very clear
> privacy law. I guess that if any of us wanted, he could sue any EU
> national registry and win.

I would not mind doing that, but cannot afford it.

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2003 12:35:05 +0100 (CET)
From: Marc Schneiders <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] WHOIS accuracy, and name deletions

On Wed, 8 Jan 2003, at 16:43 [=GMT-0000], Abel Wisman wrote:

> Domains that have invalid data sometimes (often) Are registered with a
> "faulty" credit card.

> However what everyone seems to ignore:
> If a domain is registered and paid for by cc (the most ?) then a valid
> data set should already be available, checked and counterchecked for
> security and charge-backs.

These two statements seem contradictory to me.

Further I do register domains with one and the same credit card for
different people/companies. So the whois must be different from the cc
info. Credit cards are not so widespread outside the US as one might
presume.

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2003 12:05:33 -0000
From: "Abel Wisman" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] WHOIS accuracy, and name deletions

Let mer rephrase to make it more clear, including a "chain" in the
whois:

Originally the whois rfc states that there are several fields required,
the name of the domain owner, the name and contact of the tech (C) and
the name and contact for an admin (C) and later was added the billing
contact.

The idea behind this was simple; the tech contact was important for site
problems, and when in the old days you wanted to register a domain, your
ISP who was in most cases the "go-between" for registration was the tech
contact (even if it was not the go-between, you needed permission and
the isp's name) the registrar/reseller (isp) was the admin contact and
the billing contact.
In itself the chain of "ownership" has not changed that much.
One registers a domain, pays the reseller or registrar who then submits
it to the registry, so for the registry the registrar is the billing
contact and for the registrar, well he has his customer or his reseller
as a billing contact, but that is of less importance to the world where
the bill goes, so it is a "useless" field.

Now the registrar/reseller in his due diligence as well in his business
model should have correct data on his customer and know where to reach
that customer, however nowadays he most likely will not be the host for
the site.

So we have a domain-owner (name only)
A registrar/reseller who has all the data he should have on his customer
(admin/billing)
And a hosting company that hosts the site (tech)

That is how is was designed and could and perhaps even should be, all
private data protected and the policy of the registrar/reseller
prevailing in customer choice.

However one can take that one step further and add fraud-protection to
it; If a domain is registered and a charge-back occurs then nowadays
most resellers and or registrars are out of money -eof-

That out of money wont change but the possibility to delete or recycle
the domain gets more evident then it is now.

The "owner's" influence on a domainname is neglectable, no matter what,
in case of problems IF he wants to solve them and is not the real cause
of the problem.

The owner's name is more then sufficient as long as somewhere down the
line someone has the right data for that customer.
Registering domains with a different owner name then the CC should then
safely be possible, as long as the admin = cc there is no problem, if
both are != then no registration should take place via cc.

"back to how it was" is not always a bad thing, though it proofs
impossible, alas.

Abel

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Marc Schneiders [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: 09 January 2003 11:35
> To: Abel Wisman
> Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Subject: RE: [ga] WHOIS accuracy, and name deletions
> 
> 
> On Wed, 8 Jan 2003, at 16:43 [=GMT-0000], Abel Wisman wrote:
> 
> > Domains that have invalid data sometimes (often) Are 
> registered with a 
> > "faulty" credit card.
> 
> > However what everyone seems to ignore:
> > If a domain is registered and paid for by cc (the most ?) 
> then a valid 
> > data set should already be available, checked and 
> counterchecked for 
> > security and charge-backs.
> 
> These two statements seem contradictory to me.
> 
> Further I do register domains with one and the same credit 
> card for different people/companies. So the whois must be 
> different from the cc info. Credit cards are not so 
> widespread outside the US as one might presume.
> 

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2003 10:23:20 -0800
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] WHOIS accuracy, and name deletions

On Wed, Jan 08, 2003 at 04:27:37PM -0800, George Kirikos wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> --- Rodrigo  Orenday Serrato <[email-masked]> 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 [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2003 13:24:39 -0600
From: "Rodrigo  Orenday Serrato" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] WHOIS accuracy, and name deletions

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: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]En nombre de
[email-masked]
Enviado el: Jueves, 09 de Enero de 2003 12:23 PM
Para: [email-masked]
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 <[email-masked]> 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 [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] 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 [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2003 14:40:43 -0600
From: Andy Gardner <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] WHOIS accuracy, and name deletions

At 1:24 PM -0600 1/9/03, Rodrigo  Orenday Serrato wrote:
>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.

Great. Another easy way for spammers to bombard domain owners.

- -- 
Andrew P. Gardner
barcelona.com stolen, stmoritz.com stays. What's uniform about the UDRP?
We could ask ICANN to send WIPO a clue, but do they have any to spare?
Get active: http://www.tldlobby.com
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2003 10:13:09 +1300
From: Steven Heath <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] WHOIS accuracy, and name deletions

> 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.

I was not aware that domain names can only be used for websites. 

Other than that the entire approach is the same as email, if a website is
run by a sole person and they are on vacation, or sick, or whatever they may
still not read this message, even assuming that the page used to 'serve' the
'process' was actually sent AND received. 

Thinking out loud I could see a great idea of using the 'official' page to
send a UDRP type notice to the 'owners' of a website and have my firewall or
similar device drop the out bound packets as they leave my network. I would
have 'proof' that I sent the request and thus can start any takedown process
without worrying about the pesky aspect of the registrant knowing about it
and trying to stop it!

Glib comments or ideas can not solve this issue. We MUST start with the
entire concept of what information needs to be exposed publicly and which
should be exposed 'with cause' or payment of a small fee and then move to
implementation concepts.

Steven Heath
.nz news & views
www.nznews.org.nz
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2003 15:58:00 -0600
From: "Rodrigo  Orenday Serrato" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] WHOIS accuracy, and name deletions

..by the way, spamming is penalized under laws as the one I refered in the
quoted posting. That work for you?

Atentamente, Regards
Rodrigo Orenday Serratos

- -----Mensaje original-----
De: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]En nombre de Andy
Gardner
Enviado el: Jueves, 09 de Enero de 2003 02:41 PM
Para: [email-masked]
Asunto: RE: [ga] WHOIS accuracy, and name deletions

At 1:24 PM -0600 1/9/03, Rodrigo  Orenday Serrato wrote:
>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.

Great. Another easy way for spammers to bombard domain owners.

- --
Andrew P. Gardner
barcelona.com stolen, stmoritz.com stays. What's uniform about the UDRP?
We could ask ICANN to send WIPO a clue, but do they have any to spare?
Get active: http://www.tldlobby.com
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] 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 [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2003 16:03:11 -0600
From: "Rodrigo  Orenday Serrato" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] WHOIS accuracy, and name deletions

As far as I know, domain names are used mostly for websites. I know they
have other uses, but I was under the impression that the foremost concern is
with regard to domain names used for websites.

With regard to your second paragraph, as I said before, if you own a
business, you must tend to it.

As for your firewall idea, well, the hole point of my idea is that proof of
the e-mail being sent should be issued by the website for which it is used,
by a print out of the acknowledgment of receipt that it would issue.

It's just a wild thought anyway, but thanks for paying so much attention to
it.

Atentamente, Regards
Rodrigo Orenday Serratos

- -----Mensaje original-----
De: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]En nombre de Steven
Heath
Enviado el: Jueves, 09 de Enero de 2003 03:13 PM
Para: [email-masked]
Asunto: RE: [ga] WHOIS accuracy, and name deletions

> 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.

I was not aware that domain names can only be used for websites.

Other than that the entire approach is the same as email, if a website is
run by a sole person and they are on vacation, or sick, or whatever they may
still not read this message, even assuming that the page used to 'serve' the
'process' was actually sent AND received.

Thinking out loud I could see a great idea of using the 'official' page to
send a UDRP type notice to the 'owners' of a website and have my firewall or
similar device drop the out bound packets as they leave my network. I would
have 'proof' that I sent the request and thus can start any takedown process
without worrying about the pesky aspect of the registrant knowing about it
and trying to stop it!

Glib comments or ideas can not solve this issue. We MUST start with the
entire concept of what information needs to be exposed publicly and which
should be exposed 'with cause' or payment of a small fee and then move to
implementation concepts.

Steven Heath
.nz news & views
www.nznews.org.nz
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] 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 [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2003 16:02:57 -0600
From: Andy Gardner <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] WHOIS accuracy, and name deletions

At 3:58 PM -0600 1/9/03, Rodrigo  Orenday Serrato wrote:
>..by the way, spamming is penalized under laws as the one I refered in the
>quoted posting. That work for you?

Can you point me to the appropriate law in Mexico that prevents people in
Mexico from spamming?

Thanks,

>
>-----Mensaje original-----
>De: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]En nombre de Andy
>Gardner
>Enviado el: Jueves, 09 de Enero de 2003 02:41 PM
>Para: [email-masked]
>Asunto: RE: [ga] WHOIS accuracy, and name deletions
>
>
>At 1:24 PM -0600 1/9/03, Rodrigo  Orenday Serrato wrote:
>>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.
>
>Great. Another easy way for spammers to bombard domain owners.
>
>--
>Andrew P. Gardner
>barcelona.com stolen, stmoritz.com stays. What's uniform about the UDRP?
>We could ask ICANN to send WIPO a clue, but do they have any to spare?
>Get active: http://www.tldlobby.com
>--
>This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
>Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
>("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
>Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

- -- 
Andrew P. Gardner
barcelona.com stolen, stmoritz.com stays. What's uniform about the UDRP?
We could ask ICANN to send WIPO a clue, but do they have any to spare?
Get active: http://www.tldlobby.com
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2003 23:20:59 +0100 (CET)
From: Marc Schneiders <[email-masked]>
Subject: Where-am-I? (RE: [ga] WHOIS accuracy, and name deletions)

On Thu, 9 Jan 2003, at 13:24 [=GMT-0600], Rodrigo  Orenday Serrato wrote:

> 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,

There is and never was, as far as I know, a requirement to have a website
for a domain name. There is, I think, for receiving email to postmaster@.
RFC822 IIRC.

> 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.

But where is the website? Where the server is? And if there is no website
(or even if there is one): Where is the domain?

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2003 14:36:14 -0800 (PST)
From: Rick Wesson <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] WHOIS accuracy, and name deletions

Rodrigo,

> As far as I know, domain names are used mostly for websites. I know they
> have other uses, but I was under the impression that the foremost concern is
> with regard to domain names used for websites.

a popular misconception, domain names are viewed by the public as only
used for webstes, thats because that the only way they use a domain name.
however the vast majority of domains are not just used for websites, they
are used for a unlimited number of things some of which are email, voip,
ftp, instant messaging, gopher and a multitude of other standardized
protocols (see ietf.org) or private sevices (see xmethods.org)

I refrence two websites above but both provide additional services other
than their websites.

- -rick

Rick Wesson
CTO, ICANN/GNSO Registrars Constituency

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2003 17:42:28 -0600
From: "Rodrigo  Orenday Serrato" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] WHOIS accuracy, and name deletions

Rick

Much obliged by your kind correction. As I had it, such services as the
gopher and telnet resorted only to TCP/IP addresses.

Atentamente, Regards
Rodrigo Orenday Serratos

- -----Mensaje original-----
De: Rick Wesson [mailto:[email-masked]]
Enviado el: Jueves, 09 de Enero de 2003 04:36 PM
Para: Rodrigo Orenday Serrato
CC: 'Steven Heath'; [email-masked]
Asunto: RE: [ga] WHOIS accuracy, and name deletions

Rodrigo,

> As far as I know, domain names are used mostly for websites. I know they
> have other uses, but I was under the impression that the foremost concern
is
> with regard to domain names used for websites.

a popular misconception, domain names are viewed by the public as only
used for webstes, thats because that the only way they use a domain name.
however the vast majority of domains are not just used for websites, they
are used for a unlimited number of things some of which are email, voip,
ftp, instant messaging, gopher and a multitude of other standardized
protocols (see ietf.org) or private sevices (see xmethods.org)

I refrence two websites above but both provide additional services other
than their websites.

- -rick

Rick Wesson
CTO, ICANN/GNSO Registrars Constituency

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 09 Jan 2003 18:13:31 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] WHOIS accuracy, and name deletions

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: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]En nombre de
> [email-masked]
> Enviado el: Jueves, 09 de Enero de 2003 12:23 PM
> Para: [email-masked]
> 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 <[email-masked]> 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 [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] 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 [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] 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 [email-masked]
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 [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2003 13:35:55 +1300
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] WHOIS accuracy, and name deletions

At 09:40 a.m. 10/01/2003, Andy Gardner wrote:
>At 1:24 PM -0600 1/9/03, Rodrigo  Orenday Serrato wrote:
> >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.
>
>Great. Another easy way for spammers to bombard domain owners.

Not if  it is a web-form and mail only goes through after a pro-forma 
deposit is made. :-)

- -joop-

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 09 Jan 2003 22:24:53 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: Netforum Call for Papers

Don, Roger and all,

  Thank you Don for forwarding this interesting information forward.
I am sure that there will be interesting this from a number of
individuals
and organizations.

  What struck me a hilarious was Rogers disclaimer at the bottom.  >;)

Donald Neal wrote:

>   Roger De Salis sent this to the list:
>
> - - - - -
>
> The Netforum conference for 2003 is scheduled for July 10,11,12.
>
> The Theme of the conference is
>
> Next Generation Internet: Advanced Network Operations
>
> and
>
> Computer Networking in Aviation
>
> The conference will be extremely technical with >2/3 content devoted
> to advanced networking and related topics.
>
> Speakers are invited to submit proposals for papers to the conference
> committee by sending a synopsis and Title to "[email-masked]".
>
> We look forward to an expanded conference in 2003, and the conference
> committee will be working very hard to meet or exceed the standard set
> by the 2002 conference, which I hope many of you enjoyed.
>
> The committee looks forward to receiving proposals.
>
> ====================================================================
>
> In a similar manner, attendees are welcome to suggest topics or papers
> they are interested in seeing, and the conference organisers will then
> be able to help persuade likely speakersto stump up a talk. Send to
> "[email-masked]"
>
> Rgds Roger De Salis
>
>
> -
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> "This communication, including any attachments, is confidential.
> If you are not the intended recipient, you should not read
> it - please contact me immediately, destroy it, and do not
> copy or use any part of this communication or disclose
> anything about it. Thank you."
>
> ------------------------------
> -----------------------------------------------
>
>

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 [email-masked]
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 [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 09 Jan 2003 23:01:28 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Whois - UDRP - Transfer TF Implications? -  Sex.com case developments..

All former DNSO GA members or other interested parties,

  "Are domain names property like plots of land?", asks W.M. Jones
See:  http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=03/01/07/0335210

And an even more interesting reference:
http://www.metnews.com/articles/krem010603.htm
Which the following excerpts some of you more legally adept
readers may find interesting as it relates to Whois data,
UDRP and Tranfer/Delete task forces:

Monday, January 6, 2003

Page 1

Supreme Court Asked to Decide Domain Name Conversion Issue
Ninth Circuit Panel, Over Kozinski Dissent, Asks State Justices for
Guidance in ‘Sex.com’ Case

By KENNETH OFGANG, Staff Writer/Appellate Courts

SOME BASIC BACKGROUND:

The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals yesterday asked the California
Supreme Court for a ruling on whether the registrar of an Internet
domain name can be held liable for its conversion by a party that
fraudulently persuaded it to cancel the true owner’s registration. 
The request is the latest turn in the long legal battle over 
“sex.com.” The name was registered in 1994 by Gary Kremen, doing 
business as Online Classifieds, Inc., but saw little use in the 
next 18 months. In October 1995, Stephen Michael Cohen asked that 
the name be re-registered to a Nevada company he controlled. In 
support of his request, Cohen supplied a letter on Online Classifieds 
stationery, purporting to be signed by the president of Online
Classifieds, authorizing the cancellation of the original 
registration and the re-registration of the name to Cohen.  
Cohen then used the name to build a multimillion-dollar on-line 
pornography business. About eight

months after the re-registration, Kremen asked for the name back,
claiming that the letter was a forgery.    Network Solutions, Inc.,
then the exclusive registrar of “.com” domain names, said it would not
change the registration back without a court order. Kremen then sued
Cohen, several Cohen-controlled entities, and Network Solutions 
for damages and injunctive relief.

< Personal note interjected here:  Lets hope that this Mr. Cohen is
not related to ICANN's Jonathan Cohen >

  Most interesting findings:

‘New and Substantial Issue’

Ninth Circuit Judge M. Margaret McKeown and Senior U.S. District Judge
James M. Fitzgerald of Alaska, sitting by designation, said the appeal
“raises a new and substantial issue of state law in an arena that will
have broad application” and should be decided by the state court.
   But Judge Alex Kozinski dissented, arguing that the resolution of
the issue would not affect many cases and that California law clearly
favors Kremen’s position.
   This state’s courts long ago rejected the common law rule that
property could only be the subject of conversion if “tangible,”
the jurist said, pointing to an 1880 Supreme Court ruling that 
allowed a suit for conversion of shares in a corporation and 
rejected the defense argument that the plaintiffs could sue for 
conversion of the share certificates, but not the shares themselves.

“None of this matters anyhow,” Kozinski went on to say, because 
Kremen would win even if the “merged in a document test” is applied.
Kremen has “the right to have people who type ‘www.sex.com’ into 
their web browsers sent to his website,” Kozinski—generally 
regarded as among the most tech-savvy members of the bench—explained.
“It is, in standard Geek, the right to have the second-level .com domain
‘sex’ associated with his [internet protocol] address in [Network
Solution’s] .com registry,” the judge elucidated.

< Seems here to me that Network Solutions  at the time did not
check their own Whois listing on this Domain Name or did not
believe the data such a search displayed.  And did Kremen
have a TM filed on Sex or SEX.com? >

  Also of some interest and humor in this Excerpt:

‘Too Much to Bear’
   Kozinski also attacked Network Solutions’ claim that it had no
reason to question the authenticity of Cohen’s letter as “too much to
bear,” especially given the explanation that Online Classifieds wasn’t
communicating directly because it lacked “a direct connection to the
Internet.”

   The judge commented in a footnote:
   “It’s a bit as if Judge Reinhardt sent a letter to the DMV saying,
‘Judge Kozinski wants you to transfer title to his Lamborghini
to meóhe’d write to you himself, but he’s out of stamps.’ ”

=========

   The case is Kremen v. Cohen, 01-15899.

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 [email-masked]
Contact Number: 214-244-4827 or 214-244-3801
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #1551
*************************