[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [ga] Transfer Protocol Perjury Stipulation
Yes, and don't forget the constant redefinition of English; "That
depands on what the meaning of 'is' is.", indeed!
Some of us seem to be taking direction from that as well. No wonder LLNL
has trouble.They can't even read a security directive straight.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: firstname.lastname@example.org [mailto:email@example.com]On Behalf Of Rex
> Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 1999 2:19 AM
> To: Nigel Roberts
> Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Subject: Re: [ga] Transfer Protocol Perjury Stipulation
> Remember Nigel,
> Here in the US our president redefines the word "perjury" as he goes
> It seems to be catching on.
> Nigel Roberts wrote:
> > This also completely ignores the differences in legal systems around
> > the world.
> > More North American-centric spin in my opinion.
> > In the UK, perjury is lying to a court, or making
> > a knowingly untrue statement in something like
> > a Statutory Declaration (made before a Justice
> > of the Peace -- an unpaid magistrate -- or solicitor).
> > Telling lies in a contract application form is a tort and
> > actionble in the civil courts (unless it is for credit in
> > which case it is the criminal offence of obtaining pecuniary
> > advantage by deception)
> > So let's be sure here, are they implying that each domain
> applicant in
> > the UK will now have to make a Stat. Dec. (cost between $10 -$50)???
> > Nigel Roberts
> > email@example.com
> > d3nnis 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