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

["Richard Lau" <richard@xxxxxxx>]

On Feb 22, 2008, at 9:38 AM, John Berryhill wrote:

> Having to chase hi-jacked domains name hither and yon,

> suggests that there needs to be a balance between a distributed

> inconvenience for many, versus a catastrophic event for a few.

 

 

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