> Tucows and Opensrs and their general council do not seem to want
> to clarify
> anything in public.
Easy there Jack.......I posted to this list at 12:07 that I'd work on
getting an explanation....it's only 12:25 and you're already complaining
that we don't respond. Surely 20 mintutes is an unreasonable amount of time
to expect to get anything out of a lawyer.
Ken
>
> Look at the way Ross got out of the fact that he stated that my reading of
> the UDRP was "indeed correct" when I said either jurisdiction is proper.
>
> OpenSRS is making a whopping 66% profit on thir $6.00 cost of domain
> registrations and they don't even follow the rules.
>
> I don't expect to see any decisive answers from them to your questions.
>
> "Could opensrs's general council outline what opensrs position is on
> apropriate jurisdiction so all us rsp's can develop our own strategies in
> the event that our client's domains or our domains are challenged?"
>
> Lets wait for the "clear" answer...
>
> Jack
>
> ______________________________________________________________________
> Get Your Own Private, Free Email Account at http://www.dotcomemail.com
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Swerve
> Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2001 11:52 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Chuck Hatcher; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: UDRP Clarification [WAS: RE: Re: Domain Disputes...]
>
>
> This whole isssue is quite an important one.
>
> Could opensrs's general council outline what opensrs position is on
> apropriate jurisdiction so all us rsp's can develop our own strategies in
> the event that our client's domains or our domains are challenged?
>
> As well can someone point to a precise url on opensrs where this is found?
>
> For the record, 10 days is too short a period of time.
> 30+ seems more reasonable workable to me.
>
> swerve
>
>
>
> > From: "Ross Wm. Rader" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2001 11:28:44 -0500
> > To: "Chuck Hatcher" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Subject: UDRP Clarification [WAS: RE: Re: Domain Disputes...]
> >
> >>
> >> 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?
> >
> > That coincides with my impression as well.
> >
> >>
> >> 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?
> >
> >
> > I'm not sure what the precise merits are of this particular
> case are. Our
> > General Counsel as well as our Customer Affairs group worked
> through this
> > particular one in conjunction with ICANN after the last go-round. This
> > particular action is very much above board and in accordance
> with ICANN's
> > interpretation and implementation of the rules in question.
> >
> >>
> >> 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.
> >>
> >
> >
> > I don't think that this was the case in this incident.
> >
> > -rwr
> >
> >
>
>
>
