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

[Duane Connelly <duane@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

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