RE: [registrars] Must Read

["Michael D. Palage" <michael@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Hello All:

Most people have been having problems loading this link into their browsers.
As an alternative I would suggest going directly to the Court of Appeals
website and downloading it there. The information you will need is as
follows: http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/. The docket number for the case is
00-9596.

Best regards,

Michael



-----Original Message-----
From: owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Michael D. Palage
Sent: Monday, January 26, 2004 11:11 AM
To: registrars@xxxxxxxx
Subject: [registrars] Must Read


Hello All:

Anyone that has been around the industry long enough probably recalls the
Register.com v. Verio litigation back at the turn of the century, regarding
data mining of Whois information :-)

The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit recently affirmed the lower
court's preliminary ruling, see http://www.shorl.com/gykehypypefa. However,
one of the three judges assigned to this case died after the oral arguments
and before the opinion was published. Read footnote 1 for some interesting
insight into this rather unique case.

Best regards,

Michael D. Palage




Footnote #1
Judge Parker was not in agreement with this disposition. Deliberations have
followed an unusual course. Judge Parker initially was assigned to prepare a
draft opinion affirming the district court. In the course of preparing the 2
draft, Judge Parker changed his mind and proposed to rule in favor of the
defendant, overturning the injunction in 3
most respects. Judge Parker?s draft opinion, however, failed to convince the
other members of the panel, who 4
adhered to the view that the injunction should be affirmed. Judge Parker
died shortly thereafter, prior to the 5
circulation of a draft opinion affirming the injunction, from which Judge
Parker presumably would have dissented. 6
We attach Judge Parker?s draft opinion as an Appendix. We do so for two
reasons: One is to expose Judge 7
Parker?s views, which would have been set forth in a dissenting opinion, but
for his death; the second is because his 8
opinion contains an exceptionally thorough, detailed and useful statement of
facts, including a comprehensive 9
description of the functioning of the domain name system. We have stated the
facts more briefly, mentioning only 10
those points necessary to the arguments discussed, inviting the reader to
consult Judge Parker?s very thorough fact 11
statement for a more detailed account. 12