Message-Id: <6.1.2.0.2.20050117023037.0404ceb0@mail.club-internet.fr>
Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2005 03:59:19 +0100
To: George Kirikos <gkirikos@yahoo.com>, ross@tucows.com
From: "J-F C. (Jefsey)  Morfin" <jefsey@club-internet.fr>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: More Stolen Domains -- not FUD
Cc: discuss-list@opensrs.org, dam@icann.org, ga@gnso.icann.org
In-Reply-To: <20050117000122.53353.qmail@web54505.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <41EAF7AC.8040307@tucows.com>
 <20050117000122.53353.qmail@web54505.mail.yahoo.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-3B427364
Sender: owner-ga@gnso.icann.org
Precedence: bulk

Dear George,
as you point it yourself, who is compensated to follow on that? I proposed 
long ago an insurance contract to be negotiated by IDNO, then by @large, 
for the Registrants to be able to subscribe it. Interest was then far more 
at disputing bylaws or bylaws applications. I would be interested if you 
could find the economic break down of a $ 8.95 domain name registration - 
probably $0.10 a year for the job. Just enough to state there is no 
problem. I am sure that panix.com has lawyers. But what about a private 
name holder?

Also, who has forced ICANN, ALAC and Registries to explain the users that 
they can get a faster access to Panix, in entering "panix" as a keyword? 
Not this GA!  I access ICANN's site myself in entering "nuts". It works 
well. I am on no open root for that. Just used WordPad. In such occasions 
that kind of speed-up is worth a lot of money for the owner. The way this 
no-network is no-governed is a real no-sense.

jfc


At 01:01 17/01/2005, George Kirikos wrote:

>Hello,
>
>--- "Ross Wm. Rader" <ross@tucows.com> wrote:
> > > Ask Bhavin why the
> > > nameservers of AEM.com haven't been changed yet, or those of
> > F3.com,
> > > even though they are in the same account as the thief who stole
> > > Easy-Dater.com, with the same FAKE WHOIS. The answer will
> > demonstrate
> > > to you why the current system still sucks.
> >
> > Have repatriation proceedings been initiated in these cases? If not,
> > why
> > not? This is the quickest way to get the names back.
>
>I don't know the prior owners, and have limited time (uncompensated) to
>do "pro bono" work. I try to do the best I can. Furthermore, I don't
>even have "standing". Even if I know it's stolen, there's no mechanism
>for me to challenge the registration, except to point it out, and hope
>registrars will do something....obviously at DirectI.com, a thief can
>keep a name with bad WHOIS active, even when other stolen domains are
>found in their account....
>
> > > I disagree with you that stolen domains end up in the right hands.
> > > There are a lot of stolen domain names that STAY in the thieves
> > hands,
> > > or are resold to unwitting/uncaring buyers, because the prior
> > owners
> > > were completely unreachable. Those names should have instead
> > expired
> > > and been open to registration by anyone. If there's no complainant,
> > > except the "public", how is the name recovered??
> >
> > Again - if people aren't availing themselves of the repatriation
> > rights
> > in the policy, then the names will stay with the thieves.
>
>I'm glad we agree here, that the names are staying with the thieves, if
>left unchallenged. Thus, there are a bunch of names which would have
>dropped, that are currently in the hands of thieves, or have been
>resold by the thieves. Those names have BAD PROVENANCE. They have never
>become clean. Since there's no official WHOIS history, how does a buyer
>recognize those bad names (that me and others are aware of)? They can
>never go back to having good provenance, unless a legitimate prior
>owner steps forward, to reclaim them.
>
>It's in the public interest for those names to be challenged, so that
>they can be deleted, and made open to having GOOD PROVENANCE again
>(there are some 2-letter .coms in the list, just to give you a sense of
>the values at stake -- can't publish them, as it would be bad if I
>wrongly identified a name as stolen when it wasn't, but in 99% of cases
>I've been right in trusting my ability to detect a stolen domain).
>Dormant names with bad WHOIS that suddenly switch to a new registrar,
>are tested for traffic on a parking page, then immediately posted for
>resale at various venues are some of the signs that folks should be
>looking out for...
>
>Sincerely,
>
>George Kirikos
>http://www.kirikos.com/