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

[Duane Connelly]

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
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/registrars/attachments/20080226/11f4d114/attachment.html>