Re: [ga] Transfer Protocol Perjury Stipulation

[william@dso.net (William X. Walsh)]

On Mon, 12 Jul 1999 05:16:34 -0700 (PDT), d3nnis <d3nnis@mciworld.com>
wrote:

>Today's teleconference included a slightly scarey discussion regarding the advisability of
>clamping down on domain name registrants who flee to a new registrar to escape  a
>pending dispute or cease and desist letter.    The option of requiring registrant hoppers to
>sign a statement declaring themselves free of such baggage was given some very sharp teeth:
>the penalty of perjury.
>
>As an individual domain name owner I noticed acutely the absence of any spokesperson for my
>perspective on this issue.   So I include it here.
>
>The problem is one of balance.  If you require individuals to submit to a serious legal
>penalties for statements made relative to a trademark dispute, you should make an equal
>requirement on the trademark holder.   In all fairness,  the presumption that an individual will lie
>should be no greater than the presumption that a large company will file a frivolous
>complaint with no basis in trademark infringement.
>
>I am not proposing a specific penalty that would be appropriate for a trademark holder
>who files a complaint without substance ...  just observing that the same salubrious effects achieved
>by applying penalties to individuals might well be accomplished with respect to companies -- a reduction
>in complaints.
>
>
>Dennis Schaefer
>

A private organization cannot threaten or bring action "under penalty
of perjury."  This is nothing but hot air.



--
William X. Walsh
General Manager, DSo Internet Services
Email: william@dso.net  Fax:(209) 671-7934

"The fact is that domain names are new and have unique
characteristics, and their status under the law is not yet clear." 
--Kent Crispin (June 29th, 1999)