ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives

[registrars]


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

RE: [registrars] An Opportunity to Prove A Point - Hi-Jacked Name At GoDaddy

  • To: "Richard Lau" <richard@xxxxxxx>
  • Subject: RE: [registrars] An Opportunity to Prove A Point - Hi-Jacked Name At GoDaddy
  • From: Duane Connelly <duane@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2008 10:54:48 +0900
  • Cc: "'Ross Rader'" <ross@xxxxxxxxxx>, <john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "'Paul Goldstone'" <paulg@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, "'Christine Jones'" <cjones@xxxxxxxxxxx>, "'elliot noss'" <enoss@xxxxxxxxxx>, "'Bruce Tonkin'" <Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "'Tim Ruiz'" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>, "'Adam Dicker'" <amd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, <registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • In-reply-to: <35B2FCE30372404DA1487BA2A15AFCC6@MrLauPC>
  • List-id: registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • References: <20080221170202.dc5d76307e08b3dc7f186cac1bc30a7a.6fa1839328.wbe@email.secureserver.net> <6.2.5.6.0.20080222022744.05147778@domainit.com> <017401c87560$b0b98e80$6a01a8c0@cubensis> <D9380A29-8953-4C35-8491-1AAD8738A1F4@tucows.com> <35B2FCE30372404DA1487BA2A15AFCC6@MrLauPC>
  • Sender: owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

At 05:09 26/02/08, Richard Lau wrote:

Ross:

Very well written and we support this statement. "I can't believe that
ten years later, we're still settling with the fingerpointing..." We should move forward not backwards.

Duane Connelly


Ross wrote:
"I agree fully John, but the complexity associated with "chasing
domains" is largely fabricated by our industry. The names aren't being
smuggled in the trunk of a car on the back of a freighter to some
foreign port. They are a record in a database. I can't believe that
ten years later, we're still settling with the fingerpointing
associated with re-patriating names to their rightful owners in cases
where hijackings have actually taken place.

It shouldn't matter how many registrars the name has been transferred
to or how many admin or registrant contact changes a name has gone
through post transfer. What matters is what happened in the first case
- and if the transfer was fraudulent - i.e. the registrant didn't
approve of it, then the entire chain of subsequent events should be
completely irrelevent. For some reason, the industry seems to have
settled on the more complex condition. Baffling to me why.

-ross"

Paul G wrote:
" Also, I'd appreciate if someone could explain why if somebody's domain is hijacked, or better yet, if somebody's property is STOLEN, law enforcement doesn't take over at that point? Why are there stories of property being stolen for months when it's clear that fraud has been committed and there's a digital trail? Are they not receptive? Could someone please clarify this for the group?"


Ross, I agree with your second paragraph in that it shouldn't matter what happened after the fraudulent transfer. However, it is not the fabricated by our industry that is the problem, it is the expense of the court system versus the cost of the stolen domain. Registrars are reluctant to be judge/jury on a resold stolen domain.

RL.com for example was clearly hijacked away from its owner. Resold to a new owner in California and the legal fees thus far in the battle to get it back far exceed what the stolen domain was sold for by the hijacker. It should have been a simple case to get it back, but really in 20/20 hind sight, the victim should have just paid the hijacker and saved some money. A terrible thing to say, but that is the reality of the current hijacking situation in our industry.

YYY.com was a topic in a newspaper article in the Wall Street Journal last September, yet still is not in the owner's hands. He too was told to file a UDRP (which is irrelevant).

And then you have jurisdictional issues. Law enforcement doesn't know if they have jurisdiction. And the courts aren't much better - A Florida judge recently told a victim that he would have to wait until a stolen domain was resold to a Registrant with a US address before the case could proceed since the invalid whois info listed an unreachable person in China.

Willful blindness by domain brokers, domain buyers and registrars, plus the ignorance of victims, law enforcement, courts and attorneys is the cause of this chasing of domains.


Richard Lau






<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>