<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [ga] OnlineNic's real address
- To: hdierker2204@xxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: [ga] OnlineNic's real address
- From: Danny Younger <dannyyounger@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2009 14:20:47 -0800 (PST)
Hello Eric,
Re: Who cares and why...
you may want to have a look at the cybersquatting case that resulted in a
$33.15 million judgment.
http://dockets.justia.com/docket/court-candce/case_no-3:2008cv02832/case_id-204081/
As it turns out, OnlineNic in China is the equivalent of GoDaddy in the U.S. --
it is China's largest registrar. OnlineNic has actively engaged in
cybersquatting and it still awaits the results of additional lawsuits filed by
Microsoft and Yahoo.
More importantly, it has close to 1.2 million registrations under management,
which means that registrants are at risk if the firm goes under.
Over the years we have seen numerous ICANN registrars build their own
portfolios and involve themselves in typosquatting/cybersquatting activities --
see for example exhibit 4 at
http://www.domainnamenews.com/images/dell_doc2.pdf.
On occasion, the courts have locked down their ability to function as a
registrar -- see for example http://www.domaindoorman.com/lawsuit.htm
The last thing that we need is ICANN tacitly endorsing cybersquatting by
failing to yank the accredition of such firms, and it sure doesn't help when
ICANN contributes to shenanigans that allow a registrar to conceal its primary
place of business.
If ICANN really believed in transparency, it should publish registrar
accreditation application details in full for public scrutiny.
Happy New Year to all.
Danny
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|