Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #819
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST          Saturday, October 27 2001          Volume 01 : Number 819

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

Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2001 18:48:10 -0700
From: Sotiris Sotiropoulos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Fwd: Important (message from NewRegistryDomains.com)

Roeland Meyer wrote:

>I've been getting these for the past two weeks. It's not funny, it's a PITA.
>
So have I, and so it is...  <sigh>  Oh well, I suppose, it's better than 
being shat on by a seagull...  

- -- 
Sincerely,

Sotiris Sotiropoulos

- ----------------------------
"It is not the critic who counts, not the man who points out how the strong man stumbled, 
or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is 
actually in the arena; whose face is marred by the dust and sweat and blood; who strives 
valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; who knows the great enthusiasms, 
the great devotions and spends himself in a worthy course; who at the best, knows in the 
end the triumph of high achievement, and who, at worst, if he fails, at least fails while 
daring greatly; so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know 
neither victory or defeat."

- -THEODORE ROOSEVELT
(Paris Sorbonne,1910) 

- --
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, 26 Oct 2001 18:01:50 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] WIPO Arbitrators Stern In Domain 'Hijacking' Rulings

All assembly members,

  FYI Revers-hijacking cases From WIPO...
See: http://www.technews.com/news/01/171338.html

Regards,

- --
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 118k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 214-244-4827
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, 26 Oct 2001 16:21:01 -0700
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] WIPO Arbitrators Stern In Domain 'Hijacking' Rulings

Cute ... so what's the penalty?

|> From: Jeff Williams [mailto:[email-masked]]
|> Sent: Friday, October 26, 2001 6:02 PM
|> 
|> All assembly members,
|> 
|>   FYI Revers-hijacking cases From WIPO...
|> See: http://www.technews.com/news/01/171338.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: Fri, 26 Oct 2001 18:48:15 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] WIPO Arbitrators Stern In Domain 'Hijacking' Rulings

Roeland and all assembly members,

  Good question actually Roeland!  I found myself thinking the same
thing after reading this article a couple of times.  Of course I have
some ideas on some possible penatly's/punishments!  >;)  But
they would likely be considered a bit extreme! >;)  I am sure
you have thought of a few yourself.  ?????

  But more seriously, the current WIPO/ICANN UDRP has been
used more and an harassment tool for large IP interests than it has
as a Domain Name Dispute resolution tool.  This is because of
it's many flaws, as most of us know and have pointed out
repeatedly to WIPO and the ICANN BoD long before it
was adopted in fact.  Until or unless these many flaws are
changed or modified, the WIPO/ICANN UDRP will remain
one of the internet most damaging contrivances in history.

Roeland Meyer wrote:

> Cute ... so what's the penalty?
>
> |> From: Jeff Williams [mailto:[email-masked]]
> |> Sent: Friday, October 26, 2001 6:02 PM
> |>
> |> All assembly members,
> |>
> |>   FYI Revers-hijacking cases From WIPO...
> |> See: http://www.technews.com/news/01/171338.html

Regards,

- --
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 118k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 214-244-4827
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, 26 Oct 2001 16:51:43 -0700
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] WIPO Arbitrators Stern In Domain 'Hijacking' Rulings

Friday, Friday, October 26, 2001, 4:21:01 PM, Roeland Meyer wrote:

> Cute ... so what's the penalty?

Exactly. There should be a monetary penalty for reverse hijacking
decisions, in compensation to the domain owner.  A punitive like
penalty, that they must agree to pay if they are found to be engaging
in a reverse hijacking attempt as a condition of being permitted to
initiate a UDRP action.

What do the rest of you think of this concept?

- -- 
Best regards,
William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Userfriendly.com Domains
The most advanced domain lookup tool on the net
DNS Services from $1.65/mo

- --
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: Sat, 27 Oct 2001 10:22:54 +1000
From: "Dassa" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Re[2]: [ga] WIPO Arbitrators Stern In Domain 'Hijacking' Rulings

|> -----Original Message-----
|> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of
|> William X Walsh
|> Sent: Saturday, October 27, 2001 9:52 AM
|> To: Roeland Meyer
|> Cc: General Assembly of the DNSO
|> Subject: Re[2]: [ga] WIPO Arbitrators Stern In Domain 'Hijacking'
|> Rulings
|>
|>
|> Friday, Friday, October 26, 2001, 4:21:01 PM, Roeland Meyer wrote:
|>
|> > Cute ... so what's the penalty?
|>
|> Exactly. There should be a monetary penalty for reverse hijacking
|> decisions, in compensation to the domain owner.  A punitive like
|> penalty, that they must agree to pay if they are found to be engaging
|> in a reverse hijacking attempt as a condition of being permitted to
|> initiate a UDRP action.
|>
|> What do the rest of you think of this concept?

Wouldnt' the domain name holder be able to take civil action to recover
costs and any compensation they believe they were entitled to?

I'm not against the concept, just wonder how much legal authority do we want
to invest with ICANN and the UDRP process.

Darryl (Dassa) Lynch.

- --
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, 26 Oct 2001 17:33:14 -0700
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[4]: [ga] WIPO Arbitrators Stern In Domain 'Hijacking' Rulings

Friday, Friday, October 26, 2001, 5:22:54 PM, Dassa wrote:

|>> -----Original Message-----
|>> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of
|>> William X Walsh
|>> Sent: Saturday, October 27, 2001 9:52 AM
|>> To: Roeland Meyer
|>> Cc: General Assembly of the DNSO
|>> Subject: Re[2]: [ga] WIPO Arbitrators Stern In Domain 'Hijacking'
|>> Rulings
|>>
|>>
|>> Friday, Friday, October 26, 2001, 4:21:01 PM, Roeland Meyer wrote:
|>>
|>> > Cute ... so what's the penalty?
|>>
|>> Exactly. There should be a monetary penalty for reverse hijacking
|>> decisions, in compensation to the domain owner.  A punitive like
|>> penalty, that they must agree to pay if they are found to be engaging
|>> in a reverse hijacking attempt as a condition of being permitted to
|>> initiate a UDRP action.
|>>
|>> What do the rest of you think of this concept?

> Wouldnt' the domain name holder be able to take civil action to recover
> costs and any compensation they believe they were entitled to?

> I'm not against the concept, just wonder how much legal authority do we want
> to invest with ICANN and the UDRP process.

Well, that would be hear impossible in some cases, since the UDRP is a
"virtual" environment without respect to locality, and a court case
would have to be taken in the appropriate jurisdiction.

Since the UDRP is already able to strip some one of their domain name,
I think it fair that it also be able to access a penalty when someone
abuses that process and grant compensation to the victim.  And I think
a refusal to agree to do that should be grounds for denial of access
to the UDRP proceedings at all.

- -- 
Best regards,
William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Userfriendly.com Domains
The most advanced domain lookup tool on the net
DNS Services from $1.65/mo

- --
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, 26 Oct 2001 17:38:04 -0700 (PDT)
From: Patrick Greenwell <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] WIPO Arbitrators Stern In Domain 'Hijacking' Rulings

On Fri, 26 Oct 2001, William X Walsh wrote:

> Friday, Friday, October 26, 2001, 4:21:01 PM, Roeland Meyer wrote:
>
> > Cute ... so what's the penalty?
>
> Exactly. There should be a monetary penalty for reverse hijacking
> decisions, in compensation to the domain owner.  A punitive like
> penalty, that they must agree to pay if they are found to be engaging
> in a reverse hijacking attempt as a condition of being permitted to
> initiate a UDRP action.
>
> What do the rest of you think of this concept?

I think it's a potentially interesting idea, but I find it unlikely that
you'll ever get "consensus"(aka the ICANN staff and BOD) to buy into it.
There's also a pretty significant enforcement issue. How would you propose
to enforce judgements?

/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
                               Patrick Greenwell
                 "There should be warning labels for politicians."
                            --  Derek Smalls
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

- --
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, 26 Oct 2001 17:40:03 -0700
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[3]: [ga] WIPO Arbitrators Stern In Domain 'Hijacking' Rulings

Friday, Friday, October 26, 2001, 5:38:04 PM, Patrick Greenwell wrote:

> On Fri, 26 Oct 2001, William X Walsh wrote:

>> Friday, Friday, October 26, 2001, 4:21:01 PM, Roeland Meyer wrote:
>>
>> > Cute ... so what's the penalty?
>>
>> Exactly. There should be a monetary penalty for reverse hijacking
>> decisions, in compensation to the domain owner.  A punitive like
>> penalty, that they must agree to pay if they are found to be engaging
>> in a reverse hijacking attempt as a condition of being permitted to
>> initiate a UDRP action.
>>
>> What do the rest of you think of this concept?

> I think it's a potentially interesting idea, but I find it unlikely that
> you'll ever get "consensus"(aka the ICANN staff and BOD) to buy into it.
> There's also a pretty significant enforcement issue. How would you propose
> to enforce judgements?

They would have to contractually agree to it as a condition for
entering the UDRP process.

If they default, then the domain owner has a good cause of action for
the original amount plus legal fees, right?

- -- 
Best regards,
William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Userfriendly.com Domains
The most advanced domain lookup tool on the net
DNS Services from $1.65/mo

- --
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: Sat, 27 Oct 2001 10:42:52 +1000
From: "Dassa" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Re[4]: [ga] WIPO Arbitrators Stern In Domain 'Hijacking' Rulings

|> -----Original Message-----
|> From: William X Walsh [mailto:[email-masked]]
|> Sent: Saturday, October 27, 2001 10:33 AM
|> To: Dassa
|> Cc: General Assembly of the DNSO
|> Subject: Re[4]: [ga] WIPO Arbitrators Stern In Domain 'Hijacking'
|> Rulings
|>
|> Well, that would be hear impossible in some cases, since the UDRP is a
|> "virtual" environment without respect to locality, and a court case
|> would have to be taken in the appropriate jurisdiction.

True.  And as the UDRP can already make decisions in one direction it would
be reasonable for compensation to be granted not only in cases of reverse
hi-jacking attempts but also frivolous claims.

|> Since the UDRP is already able to strip some one of their domain name,
|> I think it fair that it also be able to access a penalty when someone
|> abuses that process and grant compensation to the victim.  And I think
|> a refusal to agree to do that should be grounds for denial of access
|> to the UDRP proceedings at all.

It seems a reasonable proposal to me.  I would like it stipulated that any
such compensation or penalty should go directly to the domain name holder
and not into the UDRP coffers.

Darryl (Dassa) Lynch.

- --
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, 26 Oct 2001 19:53:53 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] WIPO Arbitrators Stern In Domain 'Hijacking' Rulings

WXW and all assembly members,

  Good idea WXW!  One that INEGroup suggested over a year ago,
as just one of the potential penalty's.  But the fine must be severe
enough to be discouraging enough for others considering similar
attempts.

William X Walsh wrote:

> Friday, Friday, October 26, 2001, 4:21:01 PM, Roeland Meyer wrote:
>
> > Cute ... so what's the penalty?
>
> Exactly. There should be a monetary penalty for reverse hijacking
> decisions, in compensation to the domain owner.  A punitive like
> penalty, that they must agree to pay if they are found to be engaging
> in a reverse hijacking attempt as a condition of being permitted to
> initiate a UDRP action.
>
> What do the rest of you think of this concept?
>
> --
> Best regards,
> William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
> Userfriendly.com Domains
> The most advanced domain lookup tool on the net
> DNS Services from $1.65/mo
>
> --
> 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 118k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 214-244-4827
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, 26 Oct 2001 17:48:55 -0700
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Re[2]: [ga] WIPO Arbitrators Stern In Domain 'Hijacking' Ruli ngs

Actually, I'm with Dassa on this one. Besides, the perp would simply laugh
at any ICANN monetary demands.  The best we could possibly do is to ban the
perp from the UDRP process forever.

|> -----Original Message-----
|> From: Dassa [mailto:[email-masked]]
|> Sent: Friday, October 26, 2001 5:23 PM
|> To: General Assembly of the DNSO
|> Subject: RE: Re[2]: [ga] WIPO Arbitrators Stern In Domain 'Hijacking'
|> Rulings
|> 
|> 
|> |> -----Original Message-----
|> |> From: [email-masked] 
|> [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of
|> |> William X Walsh
|> |> Sent: Saturday, October 27, 2001 9:52 AM
|> |> To: Roeland Meyer
|> |> Cc: General Assembly of the DNSO
|> |> Subject: Re[2]: [ga] WIPO Arbitrators Stern In Domain 'Hijacking'
|> |> Rulings
|> |>
|> |>
|> |> Friday, Friday, October 26, 2001, 4:21:01 PM, Roeland Meyer wrote:
|> |>
|> |> > Cute ... so what's the penalty?
|> |>
|> |> Exactly. There should be a monetary penalty for reverse hijacking
|> |> decisions, in compensation to the domain owner.  A punitive like
|> |> penalty, that they must agree to pay if they are found to 
|> be engaging
|> |> in a reverse hijacking attempt as a condition of being 
|> permitted to
|> |> initiate a UDRP action.
|> |>
|> |> What do the rest of you think of this concept?
|> 
|> Wouldnt' the domain name holder be able to take civil action 
|> to recover
|> costs and any compensation they believe they were entitled to?
|> 
|> I'm not against the concept, just wonder how much legal 
|> authority do we want
|> to invest with ICANN and the UDRP process.
|> 
|> Darryl (Dassa) Lynch.
|> 
|> --
|> 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: Sat, 27 Oct 2001 10:49:58 +1000
From: "Dassa" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Re[2]: [ga] WIPO Arbitrators Stern In Domain 'Hijacking' Rulings

|> -----Original Message-----
|> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of
|> Patrick Greenwell
|> Sent: Saturday, October 27, 2001 10:38 AM
|> To: William X Walsh
|> Cc: Roeland Meyer; General Assembly of the DNSO
|> Subject: Re[2]: [ga] WIPO Arbitrators Stern In Domain 'Hijacking'
|> Rulings

|> I think it's a potentially interesting idea, but I find it unlikely that
|> you'll ever get "consensus"(aka the ICANN staff and BOD) to buy into it.
|> There's also a pretty significant enforcement issue. How would
|> you propose to enforce judgements?

Perhaps the easiest way would have it as part of the initial UDRP agreement
and as a fixed amount per claim.  Say the same as the fee for the UDRP
action.  It could become a refundable portion of the fee charged for
instance.  I can only see this getting off the ground if there was a set
penalty for each instance and not as a judgementally defined amount for each
case.

Darryl (Dassa) Lynch.

- --
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, 26 Oct 2001 18:03:26 -0700
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[4]: [ga] WIPO Arbitrators Stern In Domain 'Hijacking' Ruli ngs

Friday, Friday, October 26, 2001, 5:48:55 PM, Roeland Meyer wrote:

> Actually, I'm with Dassa on this one. Besides, the perp would simply laugh
> at any ICANN monetary demands.  The best we could possibly do is to ban the
> perp from the UDRP process forever.

If they contractually agreed to it, and they default, then the victim
has a cause of action for more than the amount of the judgement.

- -- 
Best regards,
William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Userfriendly.com Domains
The most advanced domain lookup tool on the net
DNS Services from $1.65/mo

- --
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, 26 Oct 2001 18:21:24 -0700 (PDT)
From: Patrick Greenwell <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Re[2]: [ga] WIPO Arbitrators Stern In Domain 'Hijacking' Ruli ngs

On Fri, 26 Oct 2001, Roeland Meyer wrote:

> Actually, I'm with Dassa on this one. Besides, the perp would simply laugh
> at any ICANN monetary demands.  The best we could possibly do is to ban the
> perp from the UDRP process forever.

Posting a bond would be a method of addressment, but at some point this
all looks more and more like court which it shouldn't be...

/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
                               Patrick Greenwell
                 "There should be warning labels for politicians."
                            --  Derek Smalls
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

- --
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, 26 Oct 2001 18:28:39 -0700
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Re[2]: [ga] WIPO Arbitrators Stern In Domain 'Hijacking' Ruli ngs

True .... best to get rid of it altogether <g>.

|> -----Original Message-----
|> From: Patrick Greenwell [mailto:[email-masked]]
|> Sent: Friday, October 26, 2001 6:21 PM
|> To: Roeland Meyer
|> Cc: [email-masked]'; General Assembly of the DNSO
|> Subject: RE: Re[2]: [ga] WIPO Arbitrators Stern In Domain 'Hijacking'
|> Ruli ngs
|> 
|> 
|> On Fri, 26 Oct 2001, Roeland Meyer wrote:
|> 
|> > Actually, I'm with Dassa on this one. Besides, the perp 
|> would simply laugh
|> > at any ICANN monetary demands.  The best we could possibly 
|> do is to ban the
|> > perp from the UDRP process forever.
|> 
|> Posting a bond would be a method of addressment, but at some 
|> point this
|> all looks more and more like court which it shouldn't be...
|> 
|> /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
|> \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
|>                                Patrick Greenwell
|>                  "There should be warning labels for politicians."
|>                             --  Derek Smalls
|> \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
|> /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
|> 
- --
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, 26 Oct 2001 18:36:15 -0700
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[4]: [ga] WIPO Arbitrators Stern In Domain 'Hijacking' Ruli  ngs

Friday, Friday, October 26, 2001, 6:28:39 PM, Roeland Meyer wrote:

> True .... best to get rid of it altogether <g>.

Well we know that won't happen.

- -- 
Best regards,
William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Userfriendly.com Domains
The most advanced domain lookup tool on the net
DNS Services from $1.65/mo

- --
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, 26 Oct 2001 19:51:00 -0600
From: Andy Gardner <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] WIPO Arbitrators Stern In Domain 'Hijacking' Rulings

At 4:21 PM -0700 26/10/01, Roeland Meyer wrote:
>Cute ... so what's the penalty?

Respondent gets to pick a domain name from complainant's pool.

That'd make some frivolous complainant's think twice.

Of course, the complainant would probably take it straight back via another
UDRP complaint.

>|> From: Jeff Williams [mailto:[email-masked]]
>|> Sent: Friday, October 26, 2001 6:02 PM
>|>
>|> All assembly members,
>|>
>|>   FYI Revers-hijacking cases From WIPO...
>|> See: http://www.technews.com/news/01/171338.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

- -- 
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, 26 Oct 2001 21:57:54 -0400
From: Dan Steinberg <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] WIPO Arbitrators Stern In Domain 'Hijacking' Rulings

Well its an interesting idea, agreed. And since the task force is simply preparing
a questionnaire right now, I saw no harm in suggesting an addittional question to
this effect.  As for the discussion on how enforceable penalties would be, well
most things not excuded for public policy considerations can be contracted for.
The concept is not alien to any judicial system I have studied.  we shall see...

Patrick Greenwell wrote:

> On Fri, 26 Oct 2001, William X Walsh wrote:
>
> > Friday, Friday, October 26, 2001, 4:21:01 PM, Roeland Meyer wrote:
> >
> > > Cute ... so what's the penalty?
> >
> > Exactly. There should be a monetary penalty for reverse hijacking
> > decisions, in compensation to the domain owner.  A punitive like
> > penalty, that they must agree to pay if they are found to be engaging
> > in a reverse hijacking attempt as a condition of being permitted to
> > initiate a UDRP action.
> >
> > What do the rest of you think of this concept?
>
> I think it's a potentially interesting idea, but I find it unlikely that
> you'll ever get "consensus"(aka the ICANN staff and BOD) to buy into it.
> There's also a pretty significant enforcement issue. How would you propose
> to enforce judgements?
>
> /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
>                                Patrick Greenwell
>                  "There should be warning labels for politicians."
>                             --  Derek Smalls
> \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
>
> --
> 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

- --
Dan Steinberg

SYNTHESIS:Law & Technology
35, du Ravin  phone: (613) 794-5356
Chelsea, Quebec  fax:   (819) 827-4398
J9B 1N1                 e-mail:[email-masked]

- --
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, 26 Oct 2001 22:39:36 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] WIPO Arbitrators Stern In Domain 'Hijacking' Rulings

Roeland and all assembly members,

Roeland Meyer wrote:

> Actually, I'm with Dassa on this one. Besides, the perp would simply laugh
> at any ICANN monetary demands.  The best we could possibly do is to ban the
> perp from the UDRP process forever.

  I partially with both of you on this one Roeland.  I would suggest, as
we have before, that in any case where the original filer of a UDRP
complaint lost the decision and the situation was ones like the article
outlined, that the looser would be remanded to pay a penalty amount
that is severe enough to discourage such action and in addition would
not allow that organization or person to file another complaint until
or unless the damages had been paid to the defendant in the previous
incident in full and could show such.

>
>
> |> -----Original Message-----
> |> From: Dassa [mailto:[email-masked]]
> |> Sent: Friday, October 26, 2001 5:23 PM
> |> To: General Assembly of the DNSO
> |> Subject: RE: Re[2]: [ga] WIPO Arbitrators Stern In Domain 'Hijacking'
> |> Rulings
> |>
> |>
> |> |> -----Original Message-----
> |> |> From: [email-masked]
> |> [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of
> |> |> William X Walsh
> |> |> Sent: Saturday, October 27, 2001 9:52 AM
> |> |> To: Roeland Meyer
> |> |> Cc: General Assembly of the DNSO
> |> |> Subject: Re[2]: [ga] WIPO Arbitrators Stern In Domain 'Hijacking'
> |> |> Rulings
> |> |>
> |> |>
> |> |> Friday, Friday, October 26, 2001, 4:21:01 PM, Roeland Meyer wrote:
> |> |>
> |> |> > Cute ... so what's the penalty?
> |> |>
> |> |> Exactly. There should be a monetary penalty for reverse hijacking
> |> |> decisions, in compensation to the domain owner.  A punitive like
> |> |> penalty, that they must agree to pay if they are found to
> |> be engaging
> |> |> in a reverse hijacking attempt as a condition of being
> |> permitted to
> |> |> initiate a UDRP action.
> |> |>
> |> |> What do the rest of you think of this concept?
> |>
> |> Wouldnt' the domain name holder be able to take civil action
> |> to recover
> |> costs and any compensation they believe they were entitled to?
> |>
> |> I'm not against the concept, just wonder how much legal
> |> authority do we want
> |> to invest with ICANN and the UDRP process.
> |>
> |> Darryl (Dassa) Lynch.
> |>
> |> --
> |> 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 118k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 214-244-4827
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: Sat, 27 Oct 2001 12:48:26 -0400
From: "John Berryhill" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Re[2]: [ga] WIPO Arbitrators Stern In Domain 'Hijacking' Rulings

>
> Wouldnt' the domain name holder be able to take civil action to recover
> costs and any compensation they believe they were entitled to?

In the US, yes:

15 USC 1114(2)(d)(iv) -

If a registrar, registry, or other registration authority takes an action
described under clause (ii) based on a knowing and material
misrepresentation by any other person that a domain name is identical to,
confusingly similar to, or dilutive of a mark, the person making the knowing
and material misrepresentation shall be liable for any damages, including
costs and attorney's fees, incurred by the domain name registrant as a
result of such action. The court may also grant injunctive relief to the
domain name registrant, including the reactivation of the domain name or the
transfer of the domain name to the domain name registrant.

- --
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: Sat, 27 Oct 2001 12:48:28 -0400
From: "John Berryhill" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Re[2]: [ga] WIPO Arbitrators Stern In Domain 'Hijacking' Rulings

>
> Actually, I'm with Dassa on this one. Besides, the perp would simply laugh
> at any ICANN monetary demands.

In the real world, this is why a plaintiff seeking certain kinds of
preliminary relief, such as replevin of property, must first post a bond.
It provides an automatic remedy to the defendant in the event the plaintiff
is not acting in good faith.

I'd prefer to see such a bond go to a prevailing domain name registrant,
RDNH ruling or not, since it would enable more respondents with meritorious
positions to obtain counsel.

- --
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: Sat, 27 Oct 2001 02:52:17 -0500
From: "Jim Fleming" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] According to Mike Roberts....

According to Mike Roberts....
http://atlargestudy.org/forum_archive/msg01113.shtml
"If you're the manager of a top level domain name registry, it's not
a pc in a closet time anymore."
"The Japanese government and the United States government are sending
cabinet level officers to speak at the November ICANN meeting about how
serious this really is."
- -----

If ICANN is going to get serious, can someone tell Mike that his
e-mail address on the ICANN web-site is apparently wrong or
not working.
   ----- The following addresses had permanent fatal errors -----
<[email-masked]>

   ----- Transcript of session follows -----
550 <[email-masked]>... Host unknown (Name server: darwin.ptv.ca.us:
host not found)

By the way, I was not aware that ICANN was running TLDs on PCs
in closets, but that is good to know. That will certainly have to be
upgraded, as people move from the "toy" IPv4 Internet to serious systems.

Do you use a 2002:<IPv4>:0000 prefix ?

http://www.dot-arizona.com/IPv8/IPv4/
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/ietf/Current/msg12213.html

[email-masked]
http://www.unir.com
http://www.unir.com/images/architech.gif
http://www.unir.com/images/headers.gif
http://www.unir.com/images/address.gif
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt
http://msdn.microsoft.com/downloads/sdks/platform/tpipv6/start.asp
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/ietf/Current/msg12213.html
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/ietf/Current/msg12223.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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #819
************************