Ross,
I don't want to get into the specifics of this particular case, but just in
case a domain name I have registered ever becomes involved in a dispute, I
would appreciate some clarification of the following:
If I register a domain name, and someone files a complaint under the terms
of the UDRP, and the administrative panel rules in favor of the complainant
and orders transfer of the name, ICANN rules state that I have ten days to
notify them that I have filed suit in a court of appropriate jurisdiction
before the decision is implemented. As I read it, my address, as listed in
the whois record, is one appropriate jurisdiction in which I can file such
an action. If I provide evidence to ICANN that I have done so, within the
ten day period, then ICANN should take no action (and not order the
transfer) pending the outcome of the lawsuit. Presumably in such a case the
registrar would not even be involved until the lawsuit has run its course.
Am I correct so far?
Is the problem with the "foamy.com" case that ICANN apparently did not
receive the evidence of the filing within the ten day period, and did order
the transfer of the domain name? Is the registrant seeking to prevent you
(the registrar) from following ICANN's order to transfer?
If this is not the case, in other words if the problem really is that the
jurisdiction of the registrant is not an allowable jurisdiction for such an
action, then tell me why it is not. Any light you can shed on the
situation will (hopefully!) help us all rest a little easier.
Regards,
Chuck Hatcher
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ross Wm. Rader" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Jack" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Josh Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Chuck@Tucows. Com" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2001 10:19 AM
Subject: RE: Re: Domain Disputes - TUCOWS is now acting as judge and jury!!!
> Jack,
>
> We are fulfilling our obligations under contract to ICANN and have sought
> the appropriate legal counsel concerning this matter. You allegations that
> we are acting arbitrarily or somehow capriciously are unfounded. Further,
> the point to my original email was not that I or Tucows agreed with your
> position but rather it described the status quo at the time the message
was
> written.
>
> -rwr
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Jack
> > Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2001 9:55 AM
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Josh Miller; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
> > Chuck@Tucows. Com
> > Subject: RE: Re: Domain Disputes - TUCOWS is now acting as judge and
> > jury!!!
> >
> >
> > Here we go again...
> >
> > Just got a call from Karen Johnston that they are now going to move the
> > domain foamy.com even though there is a pending lawsuit locking
> > the domain,
> > and Ross even agreed with our position as stated in his email below.
> >
> > Anyone that stays with Tucows and OpenSRS is out of their minds.
> >
> > Anyone interested we are moving all 2000 of our domains on renewal to
> > http://www.stargateinc.com
> >
> > A bulk account with them costs only $6.50 per domain year.
> >
> > Jack
> >
> > ______________________________________________________________________
> > Get Your Own Private, Free Email Account at http://www.dotcomemail.com
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Ross Wm. Rader
> > Sent: Friday, February 23, 2001 2:54 PM
> > To: Jack; Josh Miller; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Chuck@Tucows. Com
> > Subject: RE: Re: Domain Disputes - TUCOWS is now acting as judge and
> > jury!!!
> >
> >
> > Jack,
> >
> > a) Your analysis of the UDRP is indeed correct.
> > b) the names in question cannot be transferred to another registrar or
> > another party because they have been locked.
> > c) My immediate feeling is that this is a simple mistake that we are
> > currently looking into to make sure that we all get to the correct
> > conclusion.
> >
> > To all others, it is the Registration Agreement that is governed under
> > Canadian law as per ICANN and *not* the UDRP which Jack has
> > already pointed
> > out.
> >
> > -rwr
> >
